Covering your ASSange

[dieseltaylor]

I was well pleased to see some Oz politicians actually have some scruples - unlike the ho-in chief. { can you tell I have been reading US sites]

Anyway on a practical note:

6 Companies That Haven't Wussed Out of Working with WikiLeaks

By Tana Ganeva, AlterNet

Posted on December 10, 2010, Printed on December 14, 2010

http://www.alternet.org/story/149142/

Giants like PayPal, Amazon.com, Visa and MasterCard almost instantly crumbled under government (and p.r.) pressure to drop WikiLeaks, depriving the site of vital funding sources and online platforms. But other companies, some of them small, independent start-ups, have decided to risk the wrath of Joe Lieberman, the State Department, and their European counterparts and help keep WikiLeaks afloat by providing funding sources (yeah, you can now donate to WikiLeaks even if you only have Visa or MasterCard.) and hosting the site. Here's a list of companies that have stood by WikiLeaks:

1. Xipwire:

The Philly online payment company has announced that unlike PayPal they welcome customer donations to WikiLeaks. According to their site, they're even waiving fees and charges so that 100% of the money goes to the whistleblower site. "While people may or may not agree with WikiLeaks, we at XIPWIRE believe that anyone who wishes to support the organization through a donation should be able to do so," they say on their site. While the publicity advantages are obvious, there's also the threat of backlash. One of the founders told the tech blog BaltTech, "We're fully aware that not everyone likes what Wikileaks is. But we are prepared to accept the consequences."

(For the moment the money goes to an escrow account because they haven't been able to reach WikiLeaks.)

2. Flattr

Flattr, which was started by one of the founders of Pirate Bay, has also been funneling money to WikiLeaks. The site lets users put money into accounts; when they run into a website they want to support, they can click on their "flattr" button to donate money to site. According to TechCrunch, WikILeaks has used Flattr since August and received over 3,000 Flattr donations when they released the Afghanistan war diary.

3. Datacell

The Icelandic company processes debit and credit card donations to WikiLeaks, so Visa and Mastercards' recent decision to cut all donations to the site has not done great things for their business.

In a statement published on their site, CEO Andreas Fink slammed Visa for letting political considerations get in the way of customer service: "The suspension of payments towards Wikileaks is a violation of the agreements with their customers. Visa users have explicitly expressed their will to send their donations to Wikileaks and Visa is not fulfilling this wish."

Founder Ólafur Sigurvinsson pointed out in an interview with an Icelandic news channel, "I've got confirmed today that I am capable of supporting Al-Qaeda, Ku Klux Klan, buy weapons, drugs and all sorts of pornopraphy with a VISA card. But that's not being investigated. Instead I can not support a humanitarian organisation fighting for the freedom of speech."

4. OVH

WikiLeaks moved to the French data server OVH after getting kicked off Amazon. This did not sit well with French Industry Minister Eric Besson, who demanded that the site be purged from all French servers. Rather than instantly boot WikiLeaks offline, the company asked the courts to clarify Besson's order. Earlier this week a judge ruled that the French government had to actually prove that WikiLeaks broke the law, instead of just saying so and then trying to intimidate private companies. A company spokesperson said, "OVH is neither for nor against this site. Now that it’s with us, we will fulfill the contract. That’s our job.”

5. Twitter

WikiLeaks relies on Twitter to communicate, and their account seems to be safe for now. The micro-blogging site has been accused of blocking #WikiLeaks and #Cablegate from the trending topics though, a claim they dispute.

6. Facebook

Facebook recently released a statement saying that they have no plans to delete the WikiLeaks account, which has 1,187,990 fans.

Tana Ganeva is an AlterNet editor. Follow her on Twitter. You can email her at tanaalternet@gmail.com.

© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149142/

And thanks to IMI who will no doubt realise this is a public service message - I have highlighted the most pertinent part showing the hypocrisy. Perhaps having US controlled organisations inserted into all financial transactions needs to be examined as a threat.

[Dietrich]

And companies that do "wuss out" of dealing with Wikileaks get their websites crippled by denial-of-service attacks.

If I were running a major international company and had waited until, say, 9 December 2010 to decide whether or not to cut ties with Wikileaks, I think I would've decided to "not wuss out"—cf. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539.

[dieseltaylor]

As I have said elsewhere the lessons from this are many:

1. Security - do not make everything easy to get. Assume your organisation will be infiltrated

2. When making decisions give weight to what might happen if the decision leaks

3. How viable is the e-business, consider what may happen if there is full-scale cyber-attacks

4. What is the state of alternative systems - ie cheques ,cash etc

5. How resistant are the banking settlement systems to infiltration /attack

6. Is it right that the international payment systems like Visa and Mastercard dance to US Govt pressure without force of law

7. Why is it that the US press does not censored for publishing if it is illegal?

Bear in mind that the Lebanese telephone system has been infiltrated by the Israelis, that the Iranian industry has been virally attacked, that all e-mail traffic is routinely "read" by the US. Now this is what we know, what we are not told is how much enemy sleeper programs or eavesdropping is carried on by foreign nations or groups.

So if you were to say what countries are best suited to weather cyber-attacks the odds are they would be deemed to be primitive countries. Each civilised country needs to have physical methods for keeping the barebones of an economic system running.

Sweden is actually looking at replacing cash with near-field cards, many companies thing mobile phones will be the answer. Both of these rely totally on electronics to be effective.

Consider how people would manage if their was a massive takedown of electronically based systems. How would people pay for food and gas, how could shopkeepers manage. There is no redundancy in most "western" civilisation.

[Michael Emrys]

Consider how people would manage if their was a massive takedown of electronically based systems. How would people pay for food and gas, how could shopkeepers manage. There is no redundancy in most "western" civilisation.

This has been preying on my mind for a couple of decades now, ever since I began using a debit card. Given the number of talented hackers in the world—an unknown percentage of whom are in the employ of governments, some of them hostile to the US or other Western countries—it's impossible to comprehensively guess what threats could be mounted or what measures have been taken to guard against this.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Recent events in cyberspace have certainly pointed up the vulnerabilities of some systems.

On the other hand, in some cases the attacks have been a colossal failure. Internet activists made a concerted effort take down Amazon.com with DDoS attacks, and had almost no effect. And this despite the fact that this is the time of year when Amazon.com should be most vulnerable to a DDoS attack (holiday shopping season, which is their max. traffic period).

Some things haven't changed in the e-commerce era. If something can go wrong, it probably will, eventually. And those who plan for a worst-case scenario, you won't be so gobsmacked when it happens. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.

It's also worth noting that traditional hard currency systems aren't invulnerable to monkey business and systemic collapse. It took a little longer in the pre e-commerce era, but as history shows, a hard currency exchange system can certainly collapse as a result of intentional malicious meddling and/or poor management.

[Stalins Organ]

You forgot the Chinese routing a bunch of traffic through their systems as reported a few weeks ago

[JonS]

a slightly less breathless take on it:

http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/11/chinas-18-minute-mystery.shtml

[Stalins Organ]

spoilsport! There are some serious cases of the military spying on the unsuspecting out there.

But this is not one of them....

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Can someone explain to me why a guy who has been accused of sex based crimes (but not rape) as far as I can tell from the Swedish prosecutor needs to post bail of over 220,000 pounds Sterling? If he was accused of murder or molestation of minors I could understand it but 220,000! Something doesn't quite compute on my bullsh*t radar.

Regards

KR

[Vanir Ausf B]

The given reason is that he is a flight risk because he has no strong ties to the UK and is known to move around a lot.

[Vanir Ausf B]

"I've got confirmed today that I am capable of supporting Al-Qaeda, Ku Klux Klan, buy weapons, drugs and all sorts of pornopraphy with a VISA card. But that's not being investigated. Instead I can not support a humanitarian organisation fighting for the freedom of speech."

Giving material aid of any kind to al-Qaeda is quite illegal under US Federal law. People who do so are not only investigated but prosecuted.

[Bigduke6]

However, thanks to Wikileaks, we know that in the considered opinion of the US State Department, more than a few US "allies" have plenty of citizens funding Al Khaida, and those allies aren't doing much about it.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/12/06/saudi-arabia-and-other-gulf-states-fund-al-qaeda-and-taliban.html

So I guess Al Khaida can live without the contributions for the US.

[Boeman]

However, thanks to Wikileaks, we know that in the considered opinion of the US State Department, more than a few US "allies" have plenty of citizens funding Al Khaida, and those allies aren't doing much about it.

Probably because they can't.

I believe it was an official representing Saudi Arabia, where much of Al Queda's funding is sourced from, who said, "The money will go where the money will go." And he's absolutely right.

After all, how successful has American law enforcement been in stemming the flow of US dollars into the coffers of Mexican/Colombian drug cartels? Not very.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I can't help but appreciate the irony of Assange pilloried by a leaked report.

The details of their sexual encounter that weekend have been redacted from the copy of the police report obtained by the Times. But the Guardian, which said it had obtained an unedited version of the document, reported Saturday that Ms. A told police Mr. Assange had stroked her leg, then pulled off her clothes and snapped her necklace. The report quotes her as saying that she “tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again.”

According to The Guardian, Ms. A. told police that Mr. Assange pinned her arms and legs to stop her reaching for a condom. Eventually one was used — but, she told her police interviewer, he appeared to have “done something” with it, resulting in its tearing...

...The unredacted police report obtained by the Guardian says that the two had sex, with a condom. In the report she described waking up to find him having sex with her again, without a condom. Later that morning, Ms. W. told police, Mr. Assange “ordered her to get some water and orange juice for him”. She said “she didn’t like being ordered around in her own home but got it anyway.” That account led to the prosecutors listing rape among the allegations they wanted to question Mr. Assange about. lawyers for the Swedish prosecutors said. Swedish legal experts have said that the section of the Swedish penal code involved in the allegation refers to the third and least serious of three categories of rape, known as “less severe”, commonly invoked when men use their strength to have sex with partners against their will. The maximum penalty for the offense under Swedish law is four years.

Back in Stockholm, Mr. Assange returned to Ms. A’s apartment, despite what she describes as a deteriorating relationship in the light of their previous sexual encounter.

On Aug. 18, according to the statements the prosecution has made in court, Mr. Assange attempted to initiate sex by rubbing himself against her when naked from the waist down. This, Swedish officials have said in interviews, is the grounds for the one of the allegations of “sexual molestation.”

[Stalins Organ]

Enuf said....at least for those of us of a certain vintage in countries where British comedy was popular......

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Yes, they might be similar in appearance but certainly not in sexual orientation!

On the matter of the extent of bail that had to be posted, I just find it laughable that the reason for such a high amount was due to the potential flight risk. What, no one would recognise him should he attempt to leave the country and should he succeed in doing so, he'll be able to hide himself in the general community wherever he goes? Yeah, riiiiiiiight.

Regards

KR

[Stalins Organ]

Perhaps someone found a cure?

He seems to have plenty of people would help him out, so I think your scepticism might be a little unfair.

I could see him being flown out of the UK in a private a/c to a small airfield in Europe & whisked from there to a nice private retreat somewhere by supporters.

Although perhaps given his ego hiding out in a country mansion and not showing his face might be a bit difficult.

[JonS]

I can't help but appreciate the irony of Assange pilloried by a leaked report.

Hmm.

Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty. Forced openness in government -- open government laws, Freedom of Information Act filings, the recording of police officers and other government officials, WikiLeaks -- reduces the power imbalance between government and the people, and increases liberty.

Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power imbalance between government and the people. Forced openness in the people -- NSA monitoring of everyone's phone calls and e-mails, the DOJ monitoring everyone's credit card transactions, surveillance cameras -- decreases liberty.

But not to worry; Schneier is a terrorist, or sumfink.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hmm.

Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty. Forced openness in government -- open government laws, Freedom of Information Act filings, the recording of police officers and other government officials, WikiLeaks -- reduces the power imbalance between government and the people, and increases liberty.

So to maximize liberty government should have no secrets at all. Everything the government says and does should be known by everyone the world over. At least that seems to be the logic presented here.

Assuming, of course, that maximum liberty is the goal. He does not state that explicitly. If that is not the goal then that would that mean there is a place for state secrets, something Assange does not seem to believe in.

[JonS]

So to maximize liberty government should have no secrets at all. Everything the government says and does should be known by everyone the world over.

Yes. Do you disagree? Do you think that, say, WWII would have been necesary if Germany had had such an open policy in the 1930s?

Granted that's utopian and impractical, but slapping RESTRICTED or higher on everything isn't working either.

Assuming, of course, that maximum liberty is the goal. He does not state that explicitly. If that is not the goal then that would that mean there is a place for state secrets ...

That is, indeed, a good question. One could also question whose liberty is to be maximised, and that liberty is for - yours and mine to be left alone, or Haliburton's et al to maximise profit.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes. Do you disagree?

Not at all. I don't know if Germany would have turned out differently. It seems to me the problem wasn't so much that people didn't know what was going on, but that most of them supported it, or at least did not oppose it.

It's irrelevant anyway. Like you, I recognize that we don't live in a utopian world where complete transparency is practical.

That is, indeed, a good question. One could also question whose liberty is to be maximised, and that liberty is for - yours and mine to be left alone, or Haliburton's et al to maximise profit.

We all live in societies with laws, governed by institutions that enforce those laws. Most of us accept these restrictions on our personal freedom as preferable to anarchy. But we don't want to live in North Korea either, so we don't maximize one way or the other. We draw the line somewhere in between and then debate about whether it should be adjusted a little this way or that.

I disagree with the terrorist Bruce Schneier that WikiLeaks has pushed the line more towards individual liberty. I think the long term effect will be more the opposite. That's not to say there is nothing in all the material Wikileaks has put out that should be in the public domain. There is some here and there, and if Assange had used a scalpel to carefully separate out those few gold nuggets and concentrate the public perception on them he may have done some real good. But he's used a shotgun instead, and anything worthwhile has been buried under mountains of information that was legitimately not public.

Everything Wikileaks has published was categorized at a level that made it available to a fairly large number of people. Wikileaks themselves puts that number at around 3 million. I have a hard time believing that number will go anywhere but down in reaction to these leaks. Does anyone seriously think the US military will react to having details of their operations and names of their contacts exposed by publishing this information themselves in the future? The days when an Army private could read correspondence between US embassies and the State Department are over. I would like for the terrorist Bruce Schneier to explain how that has increased my personal freedom, or anyone else's for that matter.

So when I crack a smile at seeing Assange's dirty laundry flapping at the top of a flagpole it's not because I'm in favor of the details of criminal investigations being leaked to the public. It's because I appreciate the irony of it in this particular case. And because I feel no sympathy for the man.

[JonS]

I disagree with the terrorist Bruce Schneier that WikiLeaks has pushed the line more towards individual liberty. I think the long term effect will be more the opposite.

Everything Wikileaks has published was categorized at a level that made it available to a fairly large number of people. Wikileaks themselves puts that number at around 3 million. I have a hard time believing that number will go anywhere but down in reaction to these leaks. Does anyone seriously think the US military will react to having details of their operations and names of their contacts exposed by publishing this information themselves in the future? The days when an Army private could read correspondence between US embassies and the State Department are over. I would like for the terrorist Bruce Schneier to explain how that has increased my personal freedom, or anyone else's for that matter.

Well, one of Wikileaks stated aims is to add friction to government, to make it more inefficient. So if State and Defence stop sharing information in secret, then Wikileaks are succeeding. And if my govt's people stop talking to your govt's people, then Wikileaks are succeeding. And I think that's great. The greatest threat to most peoples liberty - the vast majority of most people - is their own government.

That's not to say there is nothing in all the material Wikileaks has put out that should be in the public domain. There is some here and there, and if Assange had used a scalpel to carefully separate out those few gold nuggets and concentrate the public perception on them he may have done some real good. But he's used a shotgun instead, and anything worthwhile has been buried under mountains of information that was legitimately not public.

The problem with this is that it's impractical. What you see as gossip, or not legitimately public, I see as gold. And vice versa. Or not. Or otherwise. Because you and I have different hot and cold buttons. Now extend that to every person on earth, because every person on earth is affected by one or more of those files, to a greater or lesser extent. Your government are coming out of this looking like dicks, sure, but so are mine. And Russia's, and France's, and Libya's, &c. Please bear that in mind next time you're considering whether something is in the public interest or not. Who can possibly make decisions on behalf of everyone on earth as to what is gold and what isn't.

Also, what you find irrelevant now might become crucial in 6 months or 6 years. There's simply no way of knowing which what the future holds, but holding back information because some committee deciding that in late 2010 it wasn't in the public interest isn't a great solution. In fact, it's the exact kind of thinking that Wikileaks was created to confound.

Look at this another way: if some of the material is irrelevant drivel - why is it classified? For those files the fact that it's classified is the public interest, even if the mere contents aren't. For the rest; somebody, somewhere decided that each and every piece of information was important or sensitive enough to give it a classification and share with others. They must have, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered reporting it, or it wouldn't have been classified. Given that, the information in each and every one of those files must be important to someone else, who otherwise wouldn't be able to read it, but now can.

Regards

Jon

[Michael Emrys]

Look at this another way: if some of the material is irrelevant drivel - why is it classified?

Bureaucratic inertia, for one thing. Guys in offices that do work that may be legitimately classified get bored with figuring out which is which and end up simply stamping everything that crosses their desks "Secret". They take the attitude of "Why take the chance?"

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

This BBC item actually reveals how much was actually secret:

Most of the diplomatic messages released by Wikileaks have been traced to a US defence department network, known as Siprnet, used for the exchange of classified information, media reports say.

Ironically, Siprnet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network), which was set up in the 1990s, was expanded as part of moves after 9/11 to allow classified information to be shared more easily and prevent failures of communication between different intelligence agencies.

It is designed for exchange of information up to "secret" level - the level for information that would cause "serious damage" to national security.

It is thought about 2.5 million US military and civilian personnel have access to the network.

However, Siprnet is not recommended for distribution of top-secret information.

Only 6% (more than 15,000) of the documents have been classified as secret. Another 40% were "confidential", while the rest were unclassified.

Siprnet was identified as the source of the leaked messages because they had the tag "Sipdis", meaning Siprnet Distribution, as part of address codes that headed them.

Siprnet uses the same technology as the internet, but has dedicated and encrypted lines that are separate from all other communications systems, according to a defence department users' guide.

The system is protected by a series of security measures, the guide adds:

• All users must be approved and registered
  
• Passwords are complex, and must be changed every 150 days
  
• Only accessible from specially enabled computers in secure location
  
• Computers must not be left unattended
  
• No linking to civilian internet without prior approval
  
• Media storage devices become classified at secret level once connected to Siprnet-enabled computers
  
• Audit trail of all users, including identity of all persons accessing Siprnet

However, the guide says that technological advances in storage devices have made it easier to remove classified information from secure areas.

Meanwhile the network has become easier to access around the world since 9/11.

The attacks led to the State Department setting up the net centric diplomacy initiative, allowing its own information to be shared on Siprnet.

The vast majority of US embassies are now connected up to Siprnet.

Speaking to BBC News in July, US intelligence analyst Catherine Lotrionte said data-sharing was necessary for effective intelligence work, and the risk that it might make large data breaches easier was simply "the cost of doing business - the downside is that someone may break the rules".

Military suspect No-one has been charged with passing the diplomatic files to Wikileaks but suspicion has fallen on US Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak of classified US documents.

Wikileaks has in the past denied that it received any documents from Pfc Manning, and says it is technically impossible to know if he is indeed their source.

According to claims by Adrian Lamo, a former hacker, Pfc Manning told him in online chats that he removed information by burning it onto a CD.

Mr Lamo claims that Pfc Manning told him that he disguised his activities by pretending he was listening to music by Lady Gaga.

It is alleged that an online security system to detect suspicious use of Siprnet was switched off on computers used by the US military in Iraq following complaints that it was inconvenient, the UK's Guardian newspaper reports.

Also, analysts say the possibility that someone in a base in Iraq could potentially access cables about Iceland violated the principle of "need to know" in intelligence, on which the Siprnet security system is supposedly based.

Given the audit trial one might also have thought that unusual use patterns might be logged for the sake of normal security. !

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well, one of Wikileaks stated aims is to add friction to government, to make it more inefficient. So if State and Defence stop sharing information in secret, then Wikileaks are succeeding. And if my govt's people stop talking to your govt's people, then Wikileaks are succeeding. And I think that's great. The greatest threat to most peoples liberty - the vast majority of most people - is their own government.

Fascinating. So if you would prefer that my government and your government not even communicate with each other, I presume you would prefer they not do a lot of other very basic things that all government do. Given that you also view our governments as the greatest threat to our liberty, is it fair to say that you would be in favor our governments ceasing to exist?

The problem with this is that it's impractical. What you see as gossip, or not legitimately public, I see as gold. And vice versa. Or not. Or otherwise. Because you and I have different hot and cold buttons. Now extend that to every person on earth, because every person on earth is affected by one or more of those files, to a greater or lesser extent. Your government are coming out of this looking like dicks, sure, but so are mine. And Russia's, and France's, and Libya's, &c. Please bear that in mind next time you're considering whether something is in the public interest or not. Who can possibly make decisions on behalf of everyone on earth as to what is gold and what isn't.

Also, what you find irrelevant now might become crucial in 6 months or 6 years. There's simply no way of knowing which what the future holds, but holding back information because some committee deciding that in late 2010 it wasn't in the public interest isn't a great solution. In fact, it's the exact kind of thinking that Wikileaks was created to confound.

It's true that there is probably nothing any government does that would not be in the interest of someone, some where, at some time, to know. I do not see that as a compelling argument in favor of abolishing all secrets. I could use any number of relevant examples to illustrate why, but let's look at NATO military operations in Afghanistan. In who's interest is it for everything the military does in Afghanistan, and how they do it, to be made public, including the identities of Afghans cooperating with NATO forces? The most obvious and immediate beneficiaries would be the Taliban. Is this desirable? Well, it is if you are the Taliban, or if you are supportive of the Taliban. From the perspective of the United States or any other allied nation involved in Afghanistan it would be self-defeating.

Maybe it just comes down to what side you're on.