WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Intel chief: 5 years to implement leak guards
(CBS News/Associated Press, January 26, 2012)

The top U.S. intelligence official says it will take roughly five years to put in place new measures to stop another Wikileaks-style exposure of classified information.

Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper says officials are working to "tag" information to be able to track back to which intelligence staffers shared it — something prosecutors could have used to help prove allegations that Bradley Manning copied thousands of war-related records that were leaked to the website Wikileaks.

Speaking to a think tank Thursday, Clapper says the changes will also include finding ways to separate the data, such as word that a terrorist wants to hijack a flight, from how that information was collected, such as by a satellite intercept, so data can be shared among agencies without exposing their sources.

Bradley Manning is the low-ranking intelligence analyst who precipitated concerns over the security of the nation's intelligence apparatus. He is on the verge of a court-martial, charged in the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.

Manning could be imprisoned for life if convicted of aiding the enemy, the most serious charge. The charge carries a maximum penalty of death, but prosecutors have recommended against seeking the death penalty.

While working in Iraq in Army intelligence, Manning allegedly gave more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks for publication. Prosecutors say WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange collaborated with Manning.

Defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier whom the Army should never have deployed to Iraq or given access to classified material while he was stationed there from late 2009 to mid-2010.

Quote:

Intel chief: 5 years to implement leak guards
(CBS News/Associated Press, January 26, 2012)

The top U.S. intelligence official says it will take roughly five years to put in place new measures to stop another Wikileaks-style exposure of classified information.

Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper says officials are working to "tag" information to be able to track back to which intelligence staffers shared it — something prosecutors could have used to help prove allegations that Bradley Manning copied thousands of war-related records that were leaked to the website Wikileaks.

what kinda yahoos are these?

uh, tagging something to tell you who stole it is not the same as preventing the theft

It trend to make it less likely to happen in the first place.

Information is for everyone to hear

Retaliation Fears Spur Anonymity in Internet Case
(By DEVLIN BARRETT, The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2012)

Federal law-enforcement officials say they are concerned about cyber-retaliation against agents and prosecutors, in light of suspicions that people linked to the hacker collective Anonymous targeted the private life of a government official investigating WikiLeaks.

The concern prompted the government to take the rare step of keeping officials' names out of news releases and public statements when the government shut down the website Megaupload.com last week, charging company officials with violations of copyright law. Those people have denied the accusations. Such materials routinely identify prosecutors and investigators, even in case involving terrorism, violence and organized crime.

Officials said the move to keep officials' names out of the public eye wouldn't affect the prosecution of the Megaupload.com case, where prosecutors and agents will be identified as needed in court. Since the arrests, though, authorities have noticed an uptick in hacking activity linked to Anonymous. Cybersecurity officials at the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning this week that Anonymous has been credited with a string of attacks against U.S. and European government websites.

The decision to keep names out of public statements "shows deference to the sophistication and resolve" of the hacker subculture, said Tom Kellermann, chief technology officer of AirPatrol Corp., a mobile-technology company. "The Internet is a lawless place, and we've seen a turning point where governments and regimes no longer have a monopoly on technology."

Anonymous is a loose affiliation of hackers and activists who are self-proclaimed protectors of Internet freedom. To the Justice Department, the group is something more sinister. More than a dozen alleged members have been charged with computer crimes; they have pleaded not guilty. Anonymous has no formal structure or membership, and in some ways is more of a banner under which hackers and others choose to operate than an actual organization.

Though it has existed in one form or another since 2003, Anonymous raised its profile in 2010 after the website WikiLeaks released a large cache of secret U.S. documents. Anonymous-linked hackers attacked credit-card companies that froze WikiLeaks accounts, law-enforcement officials have alleged.

The U.S. has been investigating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and has issued subpoenas seeking more information about how he obtained access to the U.S. secrets. No charges have been filed. Mr. Assange's legal team has said the U.S. has no jurisdiction to prosecute him, because he is an Australian citizen who committed no crimes on U.S. soil.

One U.S. prosecutor whose name was publicly linked to the WikiLeaks probe faced so many personal intrusions that colleagues grew concerned about possible bodily harm, according to multiple law-enforcement officials. The prosecutor's home address was spread online, and the person's email account was subscribed to a pornography site, officials said. The prosecutor was also bombarded with harassing phone calls, they said.

"The forces out there are very, very good at moving very, very fast to make it unpleasant," said one person involved.

In light of those incidents, several officials familiar with the Megaupload.com case said the issue of publicly naming those working on the case was the subject of an internal debate within the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Justice Department didn't put officials' names in news releases or in public statements, although papers filed in court did contain some names.

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.

In the past year, the FBI kept individual names off several public releases about Anonymous cases. The Megaupload.com case was different in that it had no clear connection to Anonymous, yet officials were still concerned that the group, or another like-minded one, would seek to retaliate when the site was taken down.

They were right.

Within hours of the charges being announced, Anonymous and its supporters managed to overload the Justice Department's public website, making it temporarily inaccessible to people trying to load the page. The site was restored after a few hours.

Part of the concern for agents and prosecutors is that their family members could face harassment or worse from Anonymous or similar groups, officials said.

Several people familiar with the matter said authorities want to strike the right balance of making a forceful presentation about the seriousness of the alleged crimes, while avoiding any action that would be perceived as weakness or that would give Anonymous and similar groups additional attention.

Quote:

uh, tagging something to tell you who stole it is not the same as preventing the theft

It trend to make it less likely to happen in the first place.

Information isn't like that. It doesn't go down in value because it has been stolen.

Army Orders Court-Martial in WikiLeaks Case
(February 05, 2012 | Associated Press | by David Dishneau)

HAGERSTOWN, Md. -- An Army officer ordered a court-martial Friday for a low-ranking intelligence analyst charged in the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.

Military District of Washington commander Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington referred all charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning to a general court-martial, the Army said in a statement.

The referral means Manning will stand trial for allegedly giving more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents and classified combat video to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks for publication.

The 24-year-old Crescent, Okla., native faces 22 counts, including aiding the enemy. He could be imprisoned for life if convicted of that charge.

A judge who is yet to be appointed will set the trial date.

Manning's lead defense counsel, civilian attorney David Coombs, didn't immediately return a call Friday evening seeking comment on the decision.

Defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier whom the Army should never have deployed to Iraq or given access to classified material while he was stationed there from late 2009 to mid-2010.

At a preliminary hearing in December, military prosecutors produced evidence that Manning downloaded and electronically transferred to WikiLeaks nearly half a million sensitive battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, and video of a deadly 2007 Army helicopter attack that WikiLeaks shared with the world and dubbed "Collateral Murder."

Manning's lawyers countered that others had access to Manning's workplace computers. They say he was in emotional turmoil, partly because he was a gay soldier at a time when homosexuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces. The defense also claims Manning's apparent disregard for security rules during stateside training and his increasingly violent outbursts after deployment were red flags that should have prevented him from having access to classified material. Manning's lawyers also contend that the material WikiLeaks published did little or no harm to national security.

In the December hearing at Fort Meade, Md., prosecutors also presented excerpts of online chats found on Manning's personal computer that allegedly document collaboration between him and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Federal prosecutors in northern Virginia are investigating Assange and others for allegedly facilitating the disclosures.

The Bradley Manning Support Group, which contends Manning heroically exposed war crimes, issued a statement calling his prosecution "fundamentally unjust."

"This administration owes all Americans an honest explanation for their extraordinary retaliation against Bradley Manning," said Jeff Paterson, one of the group's lead organizers.

The Bradley Manning Support Group, which contends Manning heroically exposed war crimes, issued a statement calling his prosecution "fundamentally unjust."

How the UK Supreme Court is setting the international standard for open justice
(Adam Wagner, Legalweek.com, 08 Feb 2012)

The UK Supreme Court began tweeting this week as @UKSupremeCourt to deserved international fanfare. Some even speculated that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition fate could now be revealed on Twitter.

The court is already being followed by almost 5,000 Twitter users (for the uninitiated, that is a lot) and has already beaten its own Twitter policy’s prediction of "2-3 tweets a week" with eight on its first day. The eventful debut tweets included seven live updates on the swearing-in ceremony of the court’s newest Justice, Lord Reed, and one relenting to Twitter user @FOImanUK‘s valid point that contrary to the court’s stated policy, it should be possible to put freedom of information requests to the court via Twitter.

This is all excellent news. The UK’s newest and highest appeal court is now setting the international standard for open justice, with its splendid press summaries of judgments, live transmission of hearings online, accessible court facilities and generally public-facing approach. This is also as it should be: the Court has a statutory duty to be 'accessible'. But the Supreme Court, which is largely independent from the rest of the court system, is now streaking ahead of it in terms of access to justice. And this open justice gap is becoming a problem.

For the relatively few rulings emerging from and hearings held at the Supreme Court each year (just over one on average per week), the public now has access through a number of different media. But what about decisions of the 'lower' courts? These account for the vast majority of rulings in the UK. For very important Court of Appeal and High Court rulings, the Judiciary’s website publishes judgments and, in a very few selected cases, summaries. For those few rulings, the Judiciary’s website also has a Twitter feed, @JudiciaryUK.

But this is not enough. The European Court of Human Rights, which releases judgments almost every day, manages to produce press summaries for most of them, and certainly all of the important ones. Its website is not perfect but contains a wealth of statistical and judgment data, including fact sheets about key issues and up-to-date profiles of states which are subject to the courts. This is in direct contrast to the UK court system, which relies on and to an extent funds the fantastic free service BAILII to release judgments, but provides little else.

The Ministry of Justice has said that some hearings of the lower courts will soon be broadcast live. But progress has been slow, such that the BBC, ITN and Sky News wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday urging him to hurry up with the reforms, which will require legislative amendment of the longstanding law banning cameras in court.

It is time for the lower courts to catch up with the Supreme Court. Judgment summaries should be the rule, not the exception. Lord Neuberger, the head of the court of appeal, has publicly supported this idea; the Court of Appeal should lead the way. Like the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal judges have Judicial Assistants who I imagine help with researching cases. They could straightforwardly convert their work into succinct judgment summaries. This would improve public access to court judgments, which are getting longer and longer thanks to the scourge of 'copy and paste'. It would also help the press to report judgments accurately when they are released.

And millions of people are now on Twitter. Why not use this medium, which provides direct access to the public without need for the often distorting lens of the media, to explain to people what their courts are doing and how the law is changing? The Supreme Court is leading the way as a modern court, and justice has benefited. Its example should not just be praised by the Ministry of Justice, it should be followed.

on Twitter. Why not use this medium, which provides direct access to the public without need for the often distorting lens of the media,

Quote:

on Twitter. Why not use this medium, which provides direct access to the public without need for the often distorting lens of the media,

I'm sure that would kill you, Mr Goebbels.

Arraignment set for Bradley Manning in Wikileaks case
(by Associated Press, February 9, 2012)

FORT MEADE — An Army private accused of leaking classified material to the anti-secrecy website Wikileaks will be back in a military courtroom for an arraignment later this month.

The arraignment for Pfc. Bradley Manning will be held at Fort Meade on Feb. 23.

Manning faces a general court-martial on 22 counts, including aiding the enemy, which carries a possible life sentence.

At the arraignment, Manning can request a trial by military judge or jury. The jury would include at least five officers, and Manning can ask that at least one-third of the soldiers on the panel be enlisted.

Military prosecutors say Manning gave Wikileaks a trove of sensitive battlefield reports and diplomatic cables. Defense lawyers say Manning was a troubled soldier who shouldn’t have had access to classified material.