WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Judge to consider Twitter information request
(By Dana Hedgpeth, The Washington Post, February 15, 2011)

A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday said she would consider an order that the social networking site Twitter must turn over three clients' personal information as part of the government's criminal investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Half a dozen lawyers for the three Twitter customers -- including Assange -- argued that their clients' information is protected by the First Amendment.

The government has requested personal Twitter information for Assange, Bradley Manning -- the Army private who is suspected of supplying classified material to WikiLeaks -- Birgitta Jonsdottir, a former WikiLeaks activits who is also a member of Iceland's parliament, and computer programmers Rop Gonggrijp, a Dutch citizen, and Jacob Appelbaum, an American.

The case goes to the heart of the larger debate about WikiLeaks itself and whether the site's disclosing of thousands of classsified government documents was free speech or a violation of national security. A judge ordered Twitter to turn over the information in a Dec. 14 ruling.

Jonsdottir, Gonggrijp and Appelbaum were represented by three defense lawyers, including one from the American Civil Liberties Union, in Tuesday's hearing.

"The government wants the information of all connections of our clients on Twitter -- who they sent them to and where they were when they sent them. That is basically a map of association," said defense lawyer John W. Keker during a 90-minute hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan of the Eastern District of Virginia.

"It is indeed ironic making this argument here given what's going on in Egypt and the whole idea of politics and the use of social networks like Twitter," said Keker, who claimed that releasing such information about his clients would have "a chilling effect on the First Amendment," Keker said.

Lawyers for the government disagreed, saying the information they seek about the clients' addresses, bank account and credit information and e-mails is unrelated to what they said but is needed as part of their ongoing investigation into WikiLeaks.

"There is nothing burdensome. There is nothing voluminous," said John S. Davis, an assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Eastern District of Virginia, during the court hearing. "This is a standard request that is used everyday all over the country in criminal investigations."

"This is not about association rights," he said. "This is not about politics. This is about the facts and evidence. It's about the communications among people that might show association."

Davis characterized the request as being for "an American corporation's business records. "It is not for content," he said. "It is like a search for toll records. Tweets are public statements that are uniquely and widely available."

Government lawyers said the defense's request to unseal documents in the case would "damage the ongoing investigation."

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, praised the role of social networks such as Twitter in promoting freedom – at the same time as the US government was in court seeking to invade the privacy of Twitter users.

Lawyers for civil rights organisations appeared before a judge in Alexandria, Virginia, battling against a US government order to disclose the details of private Twitter accounts in the WikiLeaks row, including that of the Icelandic MP Birgitta Jonsdottir, below.

The move against Twitter has turned into a constitutional clash over the protection of individual rights to privacy in the digital age. ...

... Clinton, in a speech in Washington, cited the positive role that Twitter, Facebook and other social networks played in uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. In a stirring defence of the internet, she spoke of the "freedom to connect"....

....In what is being hailed as a major policy speech, Mrs Clinton announced that the US government would invest an additional $25m (£15m) to help online dissidents and digital activists fight state repression.

She named China, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam and Burma as countries restricting online speech, and noted that Egypt's attempt to stifle protesters by switching off the internet was unsuccessful.

Social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook were important tools that gave voice to people's aspirations, Mrs Clinton said....

The case goes to the heart of the larger debate about WikiLeaks itself and whether the site's disclosing of thousands of classsified government documents was free speech or a violation of national security.

Government lawyers said the defense's request to unseal documents in the case would "damage the ongoing investigation."

Twitter, when it applies middle eastern citizens struggling for change = good as long as we [the USA] can get ourselves positioned to make it look like that's we've wanted for the last 60 years.

A detail that is glossed over in slanted news accounts.

VIDEO: The Forgotten Man:the inside story of the security breach that enraged the American government and a profile of the man who made it happen.

The Internet’s strong culture of transparency derives from its power to make information of all kinds available instantly. But in addition to being a public space, the Internet is also a channel for private conversations. For that to continue, there must be protection for confidential communication online.

Think of all the ways in which people and organizations rely on confidential communication to do their jobs. Businesses hold confidential conversations when they’re developing new products, to stay ahead of their competitors. Journalists keep the details of some sources confidential, to protect them from retribution.

And governments also rely on confidential communication—online as well as offline. The existence of connection technologies may make it harder to maintain confidentiality, but it does not change the need for it.

Government confidentiality has been a topic of debate during the past few months because of Wikileaks. It’s been a false debate in many ways. Fundamentally, the Wikileaks incident began with an act of theft. Government documents were stolen, just the same as if they had been smuggled out in a briefcase.

Some have suggested that this act was justified, because governments have a responsibility to conduct all of their work out in the open, in the full view of their citizens.

I disagree. The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our most sensitive operations.

Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise. Consider our work with former Soviet states to secure loose nuclear material. By keeping the details confidential, we make it less likely that terrorists will find the nuclear material and steal it.

Or consider the content of the documents that Wikileaks made public. Without commenting on the authenticity of any particular documents, we can observe that many of the cables released by Wikileaks relate to human rights work carried out around the world. Our diplomats closely collaborate with activists, journalists, and citizens to challenge the misdeeds of oppressive governments. It’s dangerous work. By publishing the diplomatic cables, Wikileaks exposed people to even greater risk.

For operations like these, confidentiality is essential, especially in the Internet age, when dangerous information can be sent around the world with the click of a keystroke.

Of course, governments also have a duty to be transparent. We govern with the consent of the people, and that consent must be informed to be meaningful. So we must be judicious about when we close off our work to the public and review our standards frequently to make sure they are rigorous. In the United States, we have laws to ensure that the government makes its work open to the people. The Obama Administration has also launched unprecedented initiatives to put government data online, encourage citizen participation, and generally increase the openness of government.

The U.S. government’s ability to protect America — to secure the liberties of our people — and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should remain out of the public domain. The scale will always be tipped in favor of openness. But tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests—and the public’s least of all.

Let me be clear. I said that we would have denounced Wikileaks if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that Wikileaks used the Internet is not the reason we criticized it. Wikileaks does not challenge our commitment to Internet freedom.

One final word on this matter. There were reports in the days following the leak that the U.S. government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to Wikileaks. This is not the case. Some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to dissociate from Wikileaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our country’s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. But any business decisions that private companies may have taken to enforce their own policies regarding Wikileaks was not at the direction or the suggestion of the Obama Administration.

-Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in speech at George Washington University on February 15, 2011

Why lock him up and treat him in this way?

I'm guessing he's being made an example of.

The U.S. government’s ability to protect America — to secure the liberties of our people — and to support the rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should remain out of the public domain. The scale will always be tipped in favor of openness. But tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests—and the public’s least of all.

Adrian Liamo ... Bradley Manning is locked up & suffering this shocking treatment at the hands of the US authorities on the basis of Adrian Liamo's evidence?
How can he possibly be considered some impeccable source of information about Manning?

Securing the liberties of US citizens doesn't mean invading sovereign nations.

That's obviously true but it isn't the same as saying securing the liberties of US citizens in the circumstances they are living in.