“Chapel Perilous, that vortex where cosmological speculations, coincidences, and paranoia seem to multiply and then collapse, compelling belief or lunacy, wisdom or agnosticism.” ~Robert Anton Wilson


    ~Wikileaks~

    Share
    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:47 am

    All I can say is: "Support Wikileaks!"

    Guardian U.K.:
    Pass notes No 2,758: Wikileaks - Telling the public what those in power don't want revealed

    Age: Three.

    Appearance: Feared by the bad, loved by the good.

    It's the modern equivalent of Robin Hood? Sort of, yes. Today's most valuable currency is information and Wikileaks' raison d'etre is to take the stuff our politicians, financiers, religious leaders and other powerful yet shadowy types don't want us to know and share it out as widely as possible. It is run by The Sunshine Press and was founded by journalists, mathematicians, techies and Chinese dissidents.

    And what has it done for me lately?

    It has posted a secret video showing footage of a US aircrew falsely claiming they had encountered a group of armed insurgents and opening fire on them, killing 12 people.

    I imagine the US government wasn't too happy about that? Indeed not. It has labelled the whistleblowing site a threat to national security.

    I meant, not happy about the trigger-happy inhumanity of its soldiers. They don't seem too bothered about that.

    How do we know about such a report anyway? Surely that's the kind of thing they like to keep secret too? It is. But it's also exactly the kind of thing Wikileaks likes to get hold of, and so . . .

    It's posted up on the site along with everything else? Last month, yes.

    Where do they get all this information from? The public.

    But who in the public?
    Nobody, obviously, really knows. The Pentagon – in keeping with its unofficial motto "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" – thinks the CIA may be responsible.

    And we know they think this because . . . ? Yes. Wikileaked it.

    And where do they get the money to perform this international service of speaking truth to and about power? From the public. Ish. It relies on donations and had to close down earlier this year in order to build up funds.

    It was worth the wait. Not if you work for the US government, it wasn't.

    Do say: "I've got this tape in the attic – it's of this grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas, in 1963. Crazy thing, but this guy comes up and . . ."

    Don't say: "It's all run by lizards really."


    URL: Wikileaks.org



    Collateral Murder

    WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. For further information please visit the special project website [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
    avatar
    Wings4Wheels
    Yellow Belt
    Yellow Belt

    Number of posts : 36
    Registration date : 2009-11-17

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Wings4Wheels on Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:14 am

    Number of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan wars so far?

    "About 655,000 IRAQI people have been killed so far. And about 3,853 AMERICAN people have died so far. More americans were killed in the war (starting in 2003) than on 9/11. Sad
    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:31 pm

    Yes. And all for nothing. Evil or Very Mad
    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:39 pm

    Who watches WikiLeaks?

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

    Spoiler:
    This week a classified video of a US air crew killing unarmed Iraqis was seen by millions on the internet. But for some, the whistleblowing website itself needs closer scrutiny.

    It has proclaimed itself the "intelligence service of the people", and plans to have more agents than the CIA. They will be you and me.

    WikiLeaks is a long way from that goal, but this week it staked its claim to be the dead drop of choice for whistleblowers after releasing video the Pentagon claimed to have lost of US helicopter crews excitedly killing Iraqis on a Baghdad street in 2007. The dead included two Reuters news agency staff. The release of the shocking footage prompted an unusual degree of hand-wringing in a country weary of the Iraq war, and garnered WikiLeaks more than $150,000 in donations to keep its cash-starved operation on the road.

    It also drew fresh attention to a largely anonymous group that has outpaced the competition in just a few short years by releasing to the world more than a million confidential documents from highly classified military secrets to Sarah Palin's hacked emails. WikiLeaks has posted the controversial correspondence between researchers at East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit and text messages of those killed in the 9/11 attacks.

    WikiLeaks has promised to change the world by abolishing official secrecy. In Britain it is helping to erode the use of the courts to suppress information. Its softly spoken Australian director, Julian Assange, was recently in Iceland, offering advice to legislators on new laws to protect whistleblowers.

    Assange, who describes what he does as a mix of hi-tech investigative journalism and advocacy, foresees a day when any confidential document, from secret orders that allow our own governments to spy on us down to the bossy letters from your children's school, will be posted on WikiLeaks for the whole world to see. And that, Assange believes, will change everything.

    But there are those who fear that WikiLeaks is more like an intelligence service than it would care to admit – a shadowy, unaccountable organisation that tramples on individual privacy and other rights. And like so many others who have claimed to be acting in the name of the people, there are those who fear it risks oppressing them.

    Assange has a shock of white hair and an air of conspiracy about him. He doesn't discuss his age or background, although it is known that he was raised in Melbourne and convicted as a teenager of hacking in to official and corporate websites. He appears to be perpetually on the move but when he stops for any length of time it is in Kenya. Almost nothing is said about anyone else involved with the project.

    WikiLeaks was born in late 2006. Its founders, who WikiLeaks says comprised mostly Chinese dissidents, hackers, computer programmers and journalists, laid out their ambitions in emails inviting an array of figures with experience dealing with secret documents to join WikiLeak's board of advisers. Among those approached was the inspiration for the project, Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon papers about the Vietnam war to the New York Times four decades ago.

    "We believe that injustice is answered by good governance and for there to be good governance there must be open governance," the email said. "New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us to not only encourage document leaking, but to facilitate it directly on a mass scale. We intend to place a new star in the political firmament of man." The email appealed to Ellsberg to be part of the "political-legal defences" the organisers recognised they would need once they started to get under the skin of governments, militaries and corporations: "We'd like … you to form part of our political armour. The more armour we have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age, history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get away with it."

    Others were approached with a similar message. WikiLeaks organisers suggested that it "may become the most powerful intelligence agency on earth". Its primary targets would be "highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behaviour in their own governments and corporations."

    But the group ran in to problems even before WikiLeaks was launched. The organisers approached John Young, who ran another website that posted leaked documents, Cryptome, and asked him to register the WikiLeaks website in his name. Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter but when the organisers announced their intention to try and raise $5m he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George Soros. Then he walked away.

    "WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote in an email when he quit. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy." Young then leaked all of his email correspondence with WikiLeak's founders, including the messages to Ellsberg.

    Despite this sticky start, WikiLeaks soon began making a name for itself with a swathe of documents and establishments started kicking back.

    Two years ago, a Swiss bank persuaded a US judge to temporarily shut down the WikiLeaks site after it published documents implicating the Julius Bare bank in money laundering and tax evasion. That revealed WikiLeaks' vulnerability to legal action and it sought to put itself beyond the reach of any government and court by moving its primary server to Sweden which has strong laws to protect whistleblowers. Since then the Australian government has tried to go after WikiLeaks after it posted a secret list of websites the authorities planned to ban, and members of the US Congress demanded to know what legal action could be taken after the site revealed US airport security manuals. Both discovered there was nothing they could do. It's been the same for everyone from the Chinese government to the Scientologists.

    Yet WikiLeaks worries more than just those with an instinctive desire for secrecy. Steven Aftergood, who has published thousands of leaked documents on the Secrecy News blog he runs for the Federation of American Scientists, turned down an invitation to join WikiLeaks board of advisers.

    "They have acquired and published documents of extraordinary significance. I would say also that WikiLeaks is a response to a genuine problem, namely the over control of information of public policy significance," he says. Yet he also regards WikiLeaks as a threat to individual liberties. "Their response to indiscriminate secrecy has been to adopt a policy of indiscriminate disclosure. They tend to disregard considerations of personal privacy, intellectual property as well as security," he says.

    "One of the things I find offensive about their operations is their willingness to disclose confidential records of religious and social organisations. If you are a Mormon or a Mason or a college girl who is a member of a sorority with a secret initiation ritual then WikiLeaks is not your friend. They will violate your privacy and your freedom of association without a second thought. That has nothing to do with whistleblowing or accountability. It's simply disclosure for disclosure's sake." Aftergood's criticism has angered WikiLeaks. The site's legal advisor, Jay Lim, wrote to Aftergood two years ago warning him to stop. "Who's side are you on here Stephen? It is time this constant harping stopped," Lim said. "We are very disappointed in your lack of support and suggest you cool it. If you don't, we will, with great reluctance, be forced to respond."

    WikiLeaks has also infuriated the author, Michela Wrong, who was horrified to discover her book exposing the depths of official corruption in Kenya, It's Our Turn To Eat, was pirated and posted on WikiLeaks in its entirety on the grounds that Nairobi booksellers were reluctant to sell it for fear of being sued under Kenya's draconian libel laws.

    Wrong was angry because, while she supports what WikiLeaks is about, the book is not a government document and is freely available across the rest of the world. From email distribution lists she could see that the pirated version was being emailed among Kenyans at home and abroad. "I was beside myself because I thought my entire African market is vanishing," says Wrong. "I wrote to WikiLeaks and said, please, you're going to damage your own cause because if people like me can't make any money from royalties then publishers are not going to commission people writing about corruption in Africa." She is not sure who she was communicating with because the WikiLeaks emails carried no identification but she assumes it was Assange because of the depth of knowledge about Kenya in the replies.

    "He was enormously pompous, saying that in the interests of raising public awareness of the issues involved I had a duty to allow it to be pirated. He said: 'This book may have been your baby, but it is now Kenya's son.' That really stuck in my mind because it was so arrogant," she says. "On the whole I approve of WikiLeaks but these guys are infuriatingly self-righteous." WikiLeaks does apparently expect others to respect its claims to ownership. It has placed a copyright symbol at the beginning of its film about the Iraq shootings.

    Assange has countered criticism over some of the material on the site by saying that WikiLeak's central philosophy is "no censorship". He argues that the organisation has to be opaque to protect it from legal attack or something more sinister. But that has also meant that awkward questions – such as a revelation in Mother Jones that some of those it claims to have recruited, including a former representative of the Dalai Lama, and Noam Chomsky, deny any relationship with WikiLeaks – are sidestepped.

    Despite repeated requests for a response to the issues raised by Aftergood, Wrong and others, WikiLeaks' only response was an email suggesting to call a number that went to a recording saying it was not in service.
    avatar
    Lucid Memes
    Red Belt
    Red Belt

    Number of posts : 1111
    Registration date : 2009-02-12
    Location : Here Be Dragons

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Lucid Memes on Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:51 pm

    Extant wrote:Yes. And all for nothing. Evil or Very Mad

    Its actually for something. Economics, power, resources, geopolitics, etc...

    The problem is that the pursuit of the mentioned goals treats human life as if its absolutely nothing.

    That video is incredibly inhumane. It was like watching a video game. The people who are doing the killing are so far removed from the impact of their rounds, that the people on the screen are not seen as people. Dehumanization is a key aspect in all the cruelties of humanity throughout history...cause if you (in general) actually viewed these people as people, you'd never be able to bring yourself to do such a thing.

    There's no glory or honor in this war. I don't feel safer at home cause they're doing this. It's just killing. Neutral


    _________________
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    link
    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:01 pm

    Lucid Memes wrote:
    Extant wrote:Yes. And all for nothing. Evil or Very Mad

    Its actually for something. Economics, power, resources, geopolitics, etc...

    The problem is that the pursuit of the mentioned goals treats human life as if its absolutely nothing.

    I realise that it has a purpose. But as you say, in the grand scheme of things next to the maintenence of people's humanity and lives that purpose meaningless.

    Lucid Memes wrote:That video is incredibly inhumane. It was like watching a video game. The people who are doing the killing are so far removed from the impact of their rounds, that the people on the screen are not seen as people. Dehumanization is a key aspect in all the cruelties of humanity throughout history...cause if you (in general) actually viewed these people as people, you'd never be able to bring yourself to do such a thing.

    There's no glory or honor in this war. I don't feel safer at home cause they're doing this. It's just killing. Neutral

    The video really hit home for me once that van pulled up to pick up the injured photographer and the helicopter crew were treating them as combatants, asking for permission to engage. And then I was sickened when they opened fire.
    The "video game" aspect to it also affected my viewing of the film, it looked so much like some Hollywood films I had seen of the Iraq war and it didn't fully feel real till the injured photographer was attempting to crawl to safety. Sad
    avatar
    Lucid Memes
    Red Belt
    Red Belt

    Number of posts : 1111
    Registration date : 2009-02-12
    Location : Here Be Dragons

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Lucid Memes on Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:35 pm

    Yeah, it was also incredibly cruel how the guy laughed at the vehicle running over the cameraman's body.

    I also bet the reason why they sent the injured children to the Iraqi hospital (instead of the US military one) was to hope that the children die so they don't claim that the men there were innocent. All in an attempt to avoid scandal. Its a good thing sites like wikileaks are there to expose these war crimes.


    _________________
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    link
    avatar
    Lucid Memes
    Red Belt
    Red Belt

    Number of posts : 1111
    Registration date : 2009-02-12
    Location : Here Be Dragons

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Lucid Memes on Thu May 13, 2010 11:02 am

    All about wikileaks

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


    _________________
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    link
    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Thu May 13, 2010 6:03 pm

    Interesting explanation of the structure of Wikileaks there. Julian Assange sure likes to dominate proceedings, or at least insert himself into every question he's not a part of, though eh? Laughing
    I've read a lot of speculation in the conspiracy pages that Wikileaks is a CIA front, part of a massive disinfo operation. I've been considering this for some time, but have yet to see anyone put out anything beyond assertions. But I do hold out that it's possible, as many things are.

    Did you hear Assange's swipe at the Mother Jones website as one of their journalists, I believe, asked him a question? It was the result of the following Mother Jones article on Wikileaks:

    Inside WikiLeaks’ Leak Factory

    There's a major feud between the two sites now.

    The problem with Assange's rather strident, overly assertive concept of full disclosure and freedom of information is that are allegations that it hurts innocent individuals as well, not just the fat cats and the MIC. The notion of full disclosure and freedom of information may thus extend to the isues of privacy. This is where I think there is possibilites for what is claimed about Wikileaks as a CIA front is more plausible: by pushing for freedom of information in the public sphere as a right, it may be used as an argument for the abolition of privacy for the private citizen. The CIA (or their symapthetic ex-employees) talk about this a lot:

    The spy who came in from the code - Carmen Medina talks about tech, the CIA, and why government agencies don't play well with others

    If you were going to pick an adjective to describe the Central Intelligence Agency, "open" wouldn't immediately spring to mind. But according to Carmen Medina, who recently retired from the CIA and will speak at Gov 2.0 Expo, openness is just what the agency needs.

    Spoiler:
    How our ideas about privacy have to change:

    "CM: It struck me two or three years ago that our historical concepts of privacy were dependent upon what the technologies were at the time. So in my view, privacy is going to have to adjust to what is now possible. While some of the things that are now possible are scary to people, many add to the public good.

    I'll say it in a more generic way: If you're using the power of social networking or monitoring to prevent activities that the community has decided are illegal, because there is law, then I don't think you have the privacy to do illegal things.

    Some concepts of privacy, that we thought were rights, are going to have to give way as we find out that social networks are just a lot more efficient, and monitoring and digital ubiquity are all more efficient ways to enforce laws, for example. That's a big thing in Britain. I mean God only knows how many cameras they have on their streets. And they're using it in ways to fight crime that, frankly, I don't think is yet possible in the U.S. because of our privacy concerns.

    It's going to be very tricky. A not-well-intentioned government, or a government with authoritarian tendencies, is going to use these technologies in ways that the citizenry wouldn't approve of. But that government is not going to give them a chance to approve it.

    But let me also give you the other side of it. Government is viewed as inefficient and wasteful by American citizens. I would argue that one of the reasons why that view has grown is that they're comparing the inefficiency of government to how they relate to their bank or to their airline. Interestingly enough, for private industry to provide that level of service, there are a lot of legacy privacy barriers that are being broken. Private industry is doing all sorts of analysis of you as a consumer to provide you better service and to let them make more profit. But the same consumer that's okay with private industry doing that is not okay, in a knee-jerk reaction, with government doing that. And yet, if government, because of this dynamic, continues not to be able to adopt modern transactional practices, then it's going to fall further behind the satisfaction curve.

    We have to rethink government along these lines. And it's interesting to me that at least in the British election, it's out there as an issue in an explicit way that it has yet to be in the U.S."

    How failure to share information leads to more failure:

    "CM: One of the objections to social networking and transparent collaboration that you get at an agency like the CIA, is that when you are really doing something where you cannot have failure, the work has to be tightly controlled. It has to be much more point-to-point and hierarchical. I thought that was a stupid argument that needed to be taken apart.

    The first two-thirds of my Expo talk will use the chronology of the 2003 blackout as an example. One of the main utilities had made a decision to buy a different process software, and so they were no longer paying for the upgrades to the old software. Some of those bugs, that would've otherwise been fixed, brought the system down. I'm going to talk about why high-reliability, high-risk organizations should be adopting the principles of transparent and collaborative work first, because when these kinds of organizations have catastrophic failure, it's usually because of stovepipes and lack of systemic awareness.

    Since I come at this like a manager, I'm going to also talk about what it means for managers when you adapt transparent, collaborative, networked work. Most of what old-style managers are accustomed to doing is based on the industrial way of working. But if you create a transparent collaborative network, the manager becomes a monitor of the network's health and the network's talents. They make sure the mission is done, rather than acting as a quality control officer over every step of the process."


    This ties in with this from one of my [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:

    Spoiler:
    Yet WikiLeaks worries more than just those with an instinctive desire for secrecy. Steven Aftergood, who has published thousands of leaked documents on the Secrecy News blog he runs for the Federation of American Scientists, turned down an invitation to join WikiLeaks board of advisers.

    "They have acquired and published documents of extraordinary significance. I would say also that WikiLeaks is a response to a genuine problem, namely the over control of information of public policy significance," he says. Yet he also regards WikiLeaks as a threat to individual liberties. "Their response to indiscriminate secrecy has been to adopt a policy of indiscriminate disclosure. They tend to disregard considerations of personal privacy, intellectual property as well as security," he says.

    "One of the things I find offensive about their operations is their willingness to disclose confidential records of religious and social organisations. If you are a Mormon or a Mason or a college girl who is a member of a sorority with a secret initiation ritual then WikiLeaks is not your friend. They will violate your privacy and your freedom of association without a second thought. That has nothing to do with whistleblowing or accountability. It's simply disclosure for disclosure's sake." Aftergood's criticism has angered WikiLeaks. The site's legal advisor, Jay Lim, wrote to Aftergood two years ago warning him to stop. "Who's side are you on here Stephen? It is time this constant harping stopped," Lim said. "We are very disappointed in your lack of support and suggest you cool it. If you don't, we will, with great reluctance, be forced to respond."

    WikiLeaks has also infuriated the author, Michela Wrong, who was horrified to discover her book exposing the depths of official corruption in Kenya, It's Our Turn To Eat, was pirated and posted on WikiLeaks in its entirety on the grounds that Nairobi booksellers were reluctant to sell it for fear of being sued under Kenya's draconian libel laws.

    Wrong was angry because, while she supports what WikiLeaks is about, the book is not a government document and is freely available across the rest of the world. From email distribution lists she could see that the pirated version was being emailed among Kenyans at home and abroad. "I was beside myself because I thought my entire African market is vanishing," says Wrong. "I wrote to WikiLeaks and said, please, you're going to damage your own cause because if people like me can't make any money from royalties then publishers are not going to commission people writing about corruption in Africa." She is not sure who she was communicating with because the WikiLeaks emails carried no identification but she assumes it was Assange because of the depth of knowledge about Kenya in the replies.

    "He was enormously pompous, saying that in the interests of raising public awareness of the issues involved I had a duty to allow it to be pirated. He said: 'This book may have been your baby, but it is now Kenya's son.' That really stuck in my mind because it was so arrogant," she says. "On the whole I approve of WikiLeaks but these guys are infuriatingly self-righteous."
    avatar
    Lucid Memes
    Red Belt
    Red Belt

    Number of posts : 1111
    Registration date : 2009-02-12
    Location : Here Be Dragons

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Lucid Memes on Mon May 31, 2010 1:23 pm

    You know, I find the idea of it to be pretty fascinating if it were to be free of corruption, but that's something we can never be totally sure about.

    A whistle-blowing institution bent on exposing government and corporate corruption...but at the same time, defending themselves with the same legal tactics that governments/corporations used to hide their own corrupt tracks.

    Sounds almost too good to be true, and may very well be. It could also be (or may eventually be) used or manipulated by a perfidious gov or corp institution seeking to destroy its revivals or competitors.

    Also, let's say hypothetically that this is an actual ethical institution with good intentions. Assange is too much of an easy target whose glaring presence is so identified with Wikileaks, that simply knocking Assange off or discrediting him could also do the same for Wikileak's cause.


    _________________
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    link
    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:45 pm

    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:59 am

    Dave Emory's Spitfire List: FTR #725 Leak This! Wiki Spooks and the World of Stieg Larsson

    Podcast link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    avatar
    Extant
    Brown Belt
    Brown Belt

    Number of posts : 555
    Registration date : 2009-04-04
    Location : The Forge

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Extant on Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:28 pm

    Global Research: Who is Behind Wikileaks?

    Just watch us: the utopian dream of openness


    Sponsored content

    Re: ~Wikileaks~

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:01 pm