How America sees the World (Wikileaks)

[Brutha]

As far as the motives of hackers goes, I would have thought that your average hacker gets his kicks from the success of breaking into someone's computer, not from some altruistic desire to reveal the 'truth' (whatever that may be) into the public domain.

I don't mean the word hacker in the sense the word is used in popular media.
The German CCC*, the EFF or the Pirate Parties would be example of other political organisations that spring from the hacker ethos. All three actively support Wikileaks.
Those organisations also lead the fight against government surveillance.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily against what Wikileaks are doing, but they seem to be a self appointed organization who decide themselves what information they will release or withold

That's not really true. They promise that they will release all authentic documents that they get with fulfill the significance criteria.

Julian Assange for example believes that global warming is likely happening but still released the Climategate emails.
In the last year Wikileaks didn't didn't release a lot of material that wasn't related to the US. One thing that they released was a public plan about the organisation of the German loveparade in which a bunch of people died.

Still it's worthy of criticism that Wikileaks didn't release more documents from their trove that aren't related to the US. Wikileaks defense is that they don't have the man power to check enough documents. They also have some technical problems with their infrastructure that they want to rebuild.
Their submission page is at the moment down because they can't keep up their new documents. They promise to release the documents that they still hold which fulfill the above criteria and put the submission page back online in the future.

Because of the issue a few people who come from the adjacency of the CCC quited actively being evolved in Wikileaks to start a competing project that can be more transparent and more decentralized. On of them is the former Wikileaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg.
The Wau Holland foundation however still manages Wikileaks money. Wau Holland was a cofunder of the CCC.

If Wikileaks however loses the public debate that not only means that Wikileaks will be shut down but that other project with a bit more transparency would also be impossible.

Furthermore, Wikileaks are pretty sensitive themselves about any investigations being done into their own business. Their founder, Assange, is still in hiding, and is currently being sought by the Swedish police on a charge of rape.

According to Assange's lawyer the UK police knows the location of Assange. The UK police didn't issue a denial.
Given that there are people who call for Assange's assassination I think it's perfectly reasonable for him to reside a location that's not publically known to everyone.

It also would be really hard for Assange to hide in a ECHELON covered country. If normal people see him on the street and tell their friends via telephone or EMail that enough for ECHELON to locate Assange. He's a public face and therefore can't hide from the US.

*For full disclosure, I attended the last two congresses of the CCC but I'm no formal member of the club.

[Brutha]

There's a recent AP article describing DDoS attacks against Wikileaks with contain the quote: "The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops," Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow said in a tweet reposted by WikiLeaks to its 300,000-odd followers.

These guys think this is a bit more serious then when they defended Estonia against Russian cyberattacks.
To retell a bit of history, when Estonia got attacked neither EU nor the US had a real capacity to defend it and it Estonia got defended by a diverse coalition of Western hackers.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't mean the word hacker in the sense the word is used in popular media.

So, which English dictionary definition would you go by?

Originally Posted by Brutha

That's not really true. They promise that they will release all authentic documents that they get with fulfill the significance criteria.

So, who decides if they are 'authentic' documents - Wikileaks, surely?

Originally Posted by Brutha

According to Assange's lawyer the UK police knows the location of Assange. The UK police didn't issue a denial.

Yes, he's in the south of England. Scotland Yard know exactly where he is. They are not arresting him as the Swedish warrant is perhaps not valid in the UK. They are still examining the paper work.

[Brutha]

So, who decides if they are 'authentic' documents - Wikileaks, surely?

Of course they aren't perfect and are human. Nobody is.
They however have shown in the past that they were willing to release documents that weren't in their own political interest.
The most damaging was an email list of all Wikileaks donors that someone uploaded to Wikileaks.
For the future the plan is to decentralize the system and provide the technology to allow other people to do the validating part. See the Knight Foundation Grand request: https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@...oundation.html
Wikileaks didn't got the grant and as a result it doesn't have the funds to work fast enough on new software but that doesn't mean that they aren't working on the problem of allowing different people to do the document authentication.

The recent release of the Iraq Warlogs and Cablegate contains additional retractions. At the start Wikileaks didn't want to retract anything to be more neutral. They conceded on that point to public pressure.
That again increases the need for decentralisation to get rid of the subjectivity problem.

There's work done inside Wikileaks to have software that allows others (probably people that the source chooses) to do the subjective judgement.

Among other things, because that didn't happen fast enough inside Wikileaks Daniel Domscheit-Berg (and as I understand a few anonymous others) left Wikileaks to work on the software solution outside Wikileaks.

So, which English dictionary definition would you go by?

Webster's definition is a good first step: "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer"
Dictionary definitions however won't bring you very far when you talk about social movements. A dictionary isn't the place to look for an understanding about a ideological position or way of life that you don't yet understand.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Webster's definition is a good first step: "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer"

Agreed, so what would a hacker know about distinguishing what revealed information was true or false .. and how would Wikileaks know if it was true or false?
A hacker is an expert in computers, not in making global, moral decisions about international relations, war and peace, etc..

And, even if it was true, and disclosed, would it necessarily be in the best interest of the public at large? As I mentioned earlier, the disclosure of such information could muddy the waters, whether it be at an international, national, regional, or social level.

Disclosing everything, or having some arbitrary, unelected, independent body decide so, does not make it 'good', or even romantically attractive ( Scarlet Pimpernel gets persecuted by evil authorities!!). That is my point.

[Brutha]

And, even if it was true, and disclosed, would it necessarily be in the best interest of the public at large?

The idea of the freedom of press is that speech doesn't have to be in the interest in the public at large to be allowed. Both the US first amendment as well as the 19 article of the declaration of human rights assume that you are categorically able to exchange information without having to show to a authority that you will act in the public interest.

Those human rights got created because the founders of the US and the authors of the UN declaration of human rights believed that a central authority which the power can evade checks and balances when it can control the information flow of the society.

That the basic social contract on which our Western society is build. Citizens can inform themselves and afterwards they are able to elect a government. Citizens can also petition their government and talk to their representative to get them to take up issues.
That's what having "consent of the governed" is about.

That said, Wikileaks only gets documents that a whistleblowers uploads to Wikileaks.
Wikileaks believes that the insiders are the people who are most qualified to make a judgement of whether the information should go public.
A military serviceman risks a life in prison for revealing information to the public when publishes secret documents.
Given that insiders take a risk when the reveal information and given that they have the subject expertise they are supposed to be in a good position to make the decision.
Wikileaks wants to give those insiders the opportunity to leak. As a result it promises to release all significant and authentic submissions that it gets.

Agreed, so what would a hacker know about distinguishing what revealed information was true or false .. and how would Wikileaks know if it was true or false?

Verification of information isn't easy and it's possible to make errors. Wikileaks record is however quite good in that area. Out of hundred thousands of documents there isn't a single one that got shown to be a fabrication.

A hacker is an expert in computers, not in making global, moral decisions about international relations, war and peace, etc..

First it's a mistake to think that being a member of the hacker community is only about computers. SIME Stockholm 2009, Hacker insights by Paul "Pablos" Holman on Vimeo might illustrate the hacker mindset a bit. But it's shorter than two minutes so don't expect too much.

But aside from the expertise question, expertise doesn't help you to make decisions that reflect some moral consensus.

At the beginning the idea was to simply release everything that a whistleblowers wants to get out to remove the problem of Wikileaks making subjective moral decisions.
For Cablegate they made a deal with Der Spiegel, Le Monde and the Guardian to make them do the subjective decisions about redactions.
They even asked the US whether the US wanted to give them a list of which names they should retract which the US rejected.
Wikileaks also pays people it hired to do retraction.

I don't think the plan of how the redaction system should look like in the future is finished yet. The solution might be that the whistleblower gets a list from outlets and can choose one to do the retraction and to get early access to the material and the outlet will release the source material when it releases their articles.

Designing the social contract of that whistleblower-publisher relationship. Writing code that enforces the contract. Making sure that the system stays secure.
Those are hard tasks and people are currently working on them. It's understood that the present system isn't yet perfect.

[thirial]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The playing field gets leveled. Power gets more evenly distributed.

this is why Wikileaks is so damn important.

check out this fascinating talk between Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers) about wikileaks and the future of journalism from the Frontlineclub which champions independent, non-corporatist journalism

Frontline Club - Events: WikiLeaks: Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg in conversation

[Jaiysun4]

Julian Assange and Mr Manning are modern day heroes of the highest order. Sarah Palin and others calling for Mr Assange to be assassinated really does reveal the extent of their ignorance and evil.

[Servina]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Some people seem to revel in turning over every stone in the hope of finding some juicy morsel of scandal.

If people elect representatives to form a government, it is a given they should be entrusted to act in the people's best interests and take care of national security.

I can't see much point in thousands of emails (if that is the case) being released to the general public as they can be interpreted in as many different ways.

Personally, it doesn't surprise me that Saudi might have wanted to go to war with Iran. But, why is it so important or necessary that such a piece of information should come out?

The desire to have all information made public reeks of obsession and ♥♥♥♥♥ stirring, imo. Each sovereign state is entitled to have its own national security policy, and elected leaders should be given some trust to get on with it.

In the same way, if you are a parent, there are things you would discuss with your partner but not with your children; there are things you would discuss with your children but not with your neighbour; there are things you would discuss with your child's teacher but not with your child; there are things you would discuss with your mother but not with your partner.

In this information-sharing obsessed age, it seems to be a God given right to media nosey parkers that everyone must know everything about everyone else.

The next thing, we’ll be having Google cameras in our bedrooms, in the interest of free, open information for all!

Give us a break.

Open government is important for accountability. I am not a child and the British government are not my parents. Fundamentally, I don't agree with what the Wikileaks person is up to, especially when the "leaks" are about personal lives, but when I read that the British government agreed to protect US interests over the torturing of prisoners of war, I'm horrified. They are accountable to us, as their electors. They work for us, not the other way around. This is why we've had civil wars and protests. Do you agree with torture? Do you think people who sanction it should be protected? I don't and I don't want any government that does. Nor do I want a government who allows business interest to influence policy at the expense of human rights. Maybe it could be you, or your brother/sister/mother/son/daughter being waterboarded. Maybe it's you paying extortionate bank charges with no recourse. How would you feel then? The government are like parents.....nonsense.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Servina

They are accountable to us, as their electors. They work for us, not the other way around. This is why we've had civil wars and protests. Do you agree with torture? Do you think people who sanction it should be protected? I don't and I don't want any government that does. Nor do I want a government who allows business interest to influence policy at the expense of human rights.

Open government does not mean every little thing that happens has to be made public.

In hindsight, I don't agree with all the decisions Winston Churchill made during World War 2. But, imagine if Wikileaks existed then and all our secrets were made known to the Nazis - knowledge about the activities of the French Resistance, etc. Imagine if the British people didn't back Churchill because some negative story about one of his decisions got out. Britain would now be a slave nation ruled by Fascism.

If you don't trust your elected representatives, don't elect them in the first place. If people are stupid enough to elect an idiot as their President, whose fault is that?

Originally Posted by Servina

The government are like parents.....nonsense.

Well, you obviously missed my point, which was to illustrate that at all levels of human society, it is not necessarily desirable that everyone knows everything about everyone else, which seems to be the way this over-inquisitive, sensationalism-driven, media-dominated world is heading.

[Servina]

If you don't trust your elected representatives, don't elect them in the first place. If people are stupid enough to elect an idiot as their President, whose fault is that?

I didn't vote for Cameron and neither did most of the population of Britain. The First Past the Post system makes it possible for him to be in power with a minority.

Well, you obviously missed my point, which was to illustrate that at all levels of human society, it is not necessarily desirable that everyone knows everything about everyone else, which seems to be the way this over-inquisitive, sensationalism-driven, media-dominated world is heading.

Ok, maybe you didn't mean "parents" literally and you're right about the media. I made that point earlier. If Wikileaks is indiscriminate, then that's wrong. However, as I've already said: there are some things that open government makes more accessible, such as human rights. I stick by my point that I DO want to know if the privileged white men in suits who have been given power to make decisions are sanctioning torture.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Servina

If Wikileaks is indiscriminate, then that's wrong. However, as I've already said: there are some things that open government makes more accessible, such as human rights. I stick by my point that I DO want to know if the privileged white men in suits who have been given power to make decisions are sanctioning torture.

And I agree.

However, Wikileaks were not the first to expose waterboarding by the US - knowledge of it has been in the public arena for quite some time. And, yes, the public should speak up and take a stand.

Amnesty International have been reporting on torture used by governments for a long time now. A lot of us are already aware and doing something about it.

However, I don't think Wikileaks is necessarily adding much value to this process.

BTW - David Cameron actually attacked ex-President Bush's support of waterboarding:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/cameron-launches-attack-on-bush-waterboarding-claims-$21385534.htm

[Servina]

Originally Posted by Cantando

And I agree.

However, Wikileaks were not the first to expose waterboarding by the US - knowledge of it has been in the public arena for quite some time. And, yes, the public should speak up and take a stand.

Amnesty International have been reporting on torture used by governments for a long time now. A lot of us are already aware and doing something about it.

I'm aware of the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Well done for taking a stand. What do you do for them?

[Servina]

Originally Posted by Cantando

And I agree.


BTW - David Cameron actually attacked ex-President Bush's support of waterboarding:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/cameron-launches-attack-on-bush-waterboarding-claims-$21385534.htm

I can see that. However, if there's political wheeling and dealing going on. I like to be in the know and any hard evidence is better than conjecture and Cameron's word.

[BlaBla]

Mr. Assange is tracked down in London. Its about time the US Airforce starts bombing. Perhaps not all the greater London area, but at least the blocks were he is most likely held in arrest.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

What are the benefits of knowing the information in these cables? I have a hard time screaming "international crisis!!" just because some diplomat called Sarkozy a tiny tyrant with a Napoleon complex and a pegleg swagger. There has to be more to it than that.

The mainstream media seems to be picking up on the cables that seem trivial in nature, which seems to be influencing the general public. I keep hearing people say stuff to the effect ‘what is the significance of wikileaks if it just releases trivial information’. There has been some better quality analysis of the cables on some blogs and websites (Glen whoever on Salon and democracy now). Apparently, there was some attack in Yemen that the U.S military instigated, but they lied and told the media that it was the Yemen military that had done so. The cables disprove this and demonstrate that it was the U.S military that started the conflict. I don’t know if the popular media is deliberately doing this to trivialize wikileaks…

I think many people would respond, ‘so what? We all know the U.S lies; knowing that will not change anything’. But wikileaks is not really responsible for the apathy of the general public. It is simply meant to release documents and make them accessible to the public. It is up the viewer to decide how he/she will respond.

Originally Posted by Cantando

I can't see much point in thousands of emails (if that is the case) being released to the general public as they can be interpreted in as many different ways.

That is not the case. Wikileaks is not indiscriminately publishing the cables. They have… something like +12000 cables, and so far, they have only released 1100 or so. The are making decisions in conjunction with their partners (other news outlets, I think the OP mentioned them) over which cables are socially relevant, and if I understand correctly, I think they are editing the documents to protect innocent people.

[Brutha]

However, Wikileaks were not the first to expose waterboarding by the US - knowledge of it has been in the public arena for quite some time.

Wikileaks were the first organisation to post the documents internal manual for the running of Guantanamo.

I'm not exactly sure who exposed waterboarding but it wouldn't surprise me if it was Wikileaks. Have you actually researched on who exposed waterboarding the first time or are you just making an ignorant guess that it wasn't Wikileaks?

However, Wikileaks were not the first to expose waterboarding by the US - knowledge of it has been in the public arena for quite some time. And, yes, the public should speak up and take a stand.

Amnesty International have been reporting on torture used by governments for a long time now. A lot of us are already aware and doing something about it.

Amnesty International gave Julian Assange in 2009 it's New Media award for doing such a good job at exposing wrongdoing.

That is not the case. Wikileaks is not indiscriminately publishing the cables. They have… something like +12000 cables, and so far, they have only released 1100 or so.

Under Cable Viewer you can see the number.
At the moment it's 1295 released out of a total of 251,287. On the website you can even take a look at the documents yourself to form your own informed opinion about the cables.

If you don't trust your elected representatives, don't elect them in the first place.

Democracy is not about electing all powerful kings. Is it is about electing representatives and then being able to inform yourself about their wrongdoings to reelect those that did a good job and replace those who didn't.

The founding fathers of the US purposefully didn't advocate complete trust in the elected officials but an independent citizenry with can use the first amendment.

Another new revelation from cablegate:
Cables say drug giant hired investigators to find evidence of corruption on Nigerian attorney general to persuade him to drop legal action

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Wikileaks were the first organisation to post the documents internal manual for the running of Guantanamo.

Thanks for that info, Brutha. In light of what you have said (and from your previous posts) and some of my own research, I reckon Assange has been unfairly treated and has done some good stuff in exposing the powers that oppress others.

Keep up the good work.

Cantando.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by BlaBla

Mr. Assange is tracked down in London. Its about time the US Airforce starts bombing. Perhaps not all the greater London area, but at least the blocks were he is most likely held in arrest.

Sounds reasonable. Maybe Fox News are already on it.

[cacheborn]

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I don't think that it's accurate to say that Obama did nothing. He increased the size of the military budget and invented new legal theories to prevent the disclosure of government secrets.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that it's accurate to say that Obama did nothing. He increased the size of the military budget and invented new legal theories to prevent the disclosure of government secrets.

I agree. And he sent more troops to Afganistan the same week the Nobel was announced. How's that for irony?