Quote:WikiLeaks shakes security of Iraq's tiny Jewish community
(Roy Gutman, McClatchy Newspapers, October 7, 2011)
BAGHDAD —
It slammed WikiLeaks for releasing the cables. "Releasing the names of individuals cited in conversations that took place in confidence potentially puts their lives or careers at risk," the statement said.
A furious White also hit the website for publishing the cables. "How could they do something as stupid as that?" he said. "Do they not realize this is a life and death issue?"
My guess would be that the majority of the diplomatic cables were more gossip than truth. Foreign service officers simply report everything that they hear. I had a professor in college who was retired from the U.S. State Department. He would talk about how his fellow foreign service officers would go to all kinds of diplomatic parties and collect gossip.
A furious, exceedingly hypocritical White also hit the website for publishing the cables. "How could they do something as stupid as that?" he said. "Do they not realize this is a life and death issue?"
Cuba: Death Squads
Cuba, 1956-95 CIA's war against Cuba and Cuba's response. In 1956, CIA established in Cuba the infamous Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities, BRAC — secret police that became well known for torture and assassination of Batista's political opponents. Unclassified W/1994-1995 16-17
East Timor: Death Squads
East Timor, 1975-76. Role of U.S. Government, CIA/NSA, and their Australian collaborators in East Timor is another example of support for genocide which joins a long list of similar cases. Carter and Ford administrations have been accomplices in the massacre of anywhere between one-in-ten (Indonesian foreign minister Mochtar's latest figure) and one-in-two Timorese. Counterspy, Spring 1980, p. 19
Julian Assange: 'Journalists are war criminals'
(Jason Li, Digital Journal, October 8, 2011)
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange made a rare public appearance today at Trafalgar Square to decry war and accused journalists of propagating lies that lead to it.
The event was an anti-war assembly commemorating the ten year anniversary of the Afghan war, followed by a protest march down to Downing Street, where the official residence of the country's prime minister is.
In his short five minute speech as a guest speaker, Assange called on the crowd to “form our own networks of strength” to combat a “transnational security elite” who are conspiring to launder taxpayer money through war.
Listing a series of wars, including WWII, Somalia, and the 2003 Iraq War, Assange said that wars like Afghanistan are the result of lies. He also called journalists war criminals because of the media’s role in the spread of such lies.
He concluded by saying that “peace can only be started with truth”, and encouraged his audience to continue sending Wikileaks information: ”Go and get the truth, get into the ballpark and get the ball and give it to us and we’ll spread it all over the world.”
The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the email addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full emails.
Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years old, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing.
The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government secretly obtain information from people's email and cellphones without a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
... ... ...
Julian Assange: 'Journalists are war criminals'
East Timor truth commission finds U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation"
Report estimates 100-180,000 Timorese killed or starved 1975-1999
"Responsibility" chapter published on Web by National Security Archive
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 176
Edited by Brad Simpson
Director, Indonesia-East Timor Documentation Project
609/751-8206
[email protected]
Posted - January 24, 2006
The Indonesia/East Timor Documentation Project
Related postings
A Quarter Century of U.S. Support for Occupation
National Security Archive provides more than 1,000 documents to East Timor Truth Commission after Bush Administration refuses cooperation
East Timor Revisited
Ford, Kissinger and the Indonesian Invasion, 1975-76
Related link
The Profile of Human Rights Violations in Timor-Leste, 1974-1999
A Report by the Benetech Human Rights Data Analysis Group to the Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation of Timor-Leste
In the news
"Report: U.S. Arms Helped Indonesia Attack East Timor"
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post
January 25, 2006
"Government lied to cover up war crimes in 1975 invasion of island"
By Richard Lloyd Parry
The Times (UK)
November 30, 2005
"Documents show Britain covered up murders of 5 journalists in RI's 1975 invasion of E. Timor"
Associated Press
December 1, 2005
"Files show complicity on Timor"
By Donald Greenlees
International Herald Tribune
December 1, 2005
"New documents expose US backing for Indonesian invasion of East Timor"
Agence France-Presse
December 2, 2005
"Thirty Years After the Indonesian Invasion of East Timor, Will the U.S. Be Held Accountable for its Role in the Slaughter?"
Democracy Now!
December 7, 2005
Washington, D.C., January 24, 2006 - The final report of East Timor's landmark Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) has found that U.S. "political and military support were fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation" of East Timor from 1975 to 1999, according to the "Responsibility" chapter of the report posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive, which assisted the Commission with extensive documentation.
The Commission report, entitled "Chega!" ("Enough" in Portuguese), estimates that up to 180,000 East Timorese were killed by Indonesian troops or died of enforced starvation and other causes resulting from the occupation between 1975 and 1999. The "Responsibility" chapter details the primary role of the Indonesian military and security forces, as well as the supporting roles played by Australia, Portugal, the United States, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, and France.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB176/index.htm
Secret Orders Target Email
WikiLeaks Backer's Information Soug
Quote:The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the email addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full emails.
Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years old, hasn't been charged with wrongdoing.
The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government secretly obtain information from people's email and cellphones without a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
... ... ...
The court orders reviewed by the Journal seek the same type of information that Twitter was asked to turn over. The secret Google order is dated Jan. 4 and directs the search giant to hand over the IP address from which Mr. Appelbaum logged into his gmail.com account and the email and IP addresses of the users with whom he communicated dating back to Nov. 1, 2009. It isn't clear whether Google fought the order or turned over documents.
The secret Sonic order is dated April 15 and directs Sonic to turn over the same type of information from Mr. Appelbaum's email account dating back to Nov. 1, 2009.
On Aug. 31, the court agreed to lift the seal on the Sonic order to provide Mr. Appelbaum a copy of it. Sonic Chief Executive Mr. Jasper said the company also sought to unseal the rest of its legal filings but that request "came back virtually entirely denied."
--Julia Angwin, The Wall Street Journal, October 10, 2011
Anonymous NYSE: Wall Street 'Hacktivism' Exposes Downside of Anonymity
(Melanie Jones, International Business Times, October 11, 2011)
The Anonymous takedown of NYSE Monday, Oct. 10, meant as a show of support for the Occupy Wall Street movement,has exposed a new understanding of "hacktivism": anonymity can be a curse as well as a blessing.
On Oct. 3, a YouTube video was posted by someone claiming to be a faction of Anonymous, the hacker collective famous for its attacks on Scientology and its support of WikiLeaks.
"Many people refuse to accept that Operation Invade Wall Street is a reality," a computer-generated voice said. "Those who are going to be part of the attack have a message to the NYSE: We don't like you... [we] plan to destroy you."
Within hours of the message, people flooded Twitter, 4chan, and various forums. Many of those posting, however, were there to disassociate Anonymous from the upcoming attack, not to endorse it.
"Many of our brothers and sisters," a widely circulated statement read, "have gone down in the fight for using such tactics [as advocated in the video]," it read. Another hinted that the attack might be a plant, or a small faction without the skill set to take NYSE on. "You must take all notices and information claiming to be 'Anonymous' with a grain of salt," wrote detractors. 'Consider EVERYTHING... Anonymous wouldn't tell you to use LOIC. Anonymous wouldn't attack NYSE on a holiday. It is debatable if Anonymous would ever even attack NYSE."
Following the attack, meanwhile, an Anonymous supporter with access to some of the movement's main Twitter accounts spoke to the IBTimes. "The NYSE attack proved Anonymous is not unanimous," the man said. "[The attack] was probably not generally supported. I didn't notice mass support in IRC [Internet Relay Chat] either."
And therein lies what has been the brilliance and will continue to be one downside of the Anonymous organization: it's not really an organization at all.
In an earlier interview with IBTimes, supporter Michela Marsh addressed many people's misconceptions. "[Anonymous] isn't a group or community or movement like everyone thinks," she said. "It's just a name under which all these people are operating... a pseudonym, a pen name, something to stop government and the public from knowing these people's identity."
"People think they can 'join' and start saying, 'Oh, Anonymous doesn't support that hack, Anonymous supports Lulzsec [a splinter group],'" she continued. "But they can't, because it doesn't mean anything."
**************************************************************
Coverage of the attack has been divergent at best. Some groups, including trackers like Keynote and AlertSite, reported that the site slowed down around 3:30pm EST, the estimated start of the attack, and registered brief but widespread continuous disruptions between 5:30 and 5:55 pm.
NYSE spokesman Rich Adamonis, however, rebutted the findings. "We detected no service outage on our corporate web site at that time," he said.
E.J. Hilbert, president of Online Intelligence and a former FBI cyber-crime specialist, was similarly dismissive. "It's like four 9-pound weaklings running into a Sumo wrestler," Hilbert told ABC News. "If you don't have enough people behind an event like this, it's just a spike in traffic as far as NYSE is concerned."
Adapting to a Porous World
(Benjamin Ho, The Diplomat, October 12, 2011)
The second Singapore Global Dialogue, held late last month, saw much public debate over the new world order and global governance. The meeting took place at a time when events over the past 12 months have highlighted how cyberspace has become a defining factor in international politics.
The release of US State Department diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks was only the most notable example of the potential influence of cyberspace on global politics. Likewise, the announcement in July by the US Defence Department that it will be developing strategies for operating in cyberspace highlighted the extent to which cyberspace now constitutes an operational domain in matters of national security.
But while governments and businesses have invested much in trying to shore up their cyber defences, it appears that these institutions are less savvy in coming to grips with the new socio-political environment they exist in.
According to Matthew Armstrong, executive director of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, the changing information and human environment has shaped the way communities relate with each other. Older forms of thinking, which assume territorial boundaries and bureaucratic control as fundamental to political governance, are being replaced by alternative social and political configurations. As Armstrong put it: ‘Today’s world of communication has increasingly porous boundaries (resulting in) the formation of new forms of non-national diasporas.’
For years, debates over the role of the nation state on the Internet have been distorted by wrong assumptions. On the one hand, some saw cyberspace as inherently anarchical and resistant to governance and authority. Yet the idea that the Internet should be an unregulated free-for-all is misguided – it would be like a game of football with no referee and no rules.
What could be termed ‘realists,‘ on the other hand, place too much emphasis on the power and dominance of states, and typically assess cyberspace only on the merits of its functional use (such as engaging in cyber warfare against another nation, or generating support for a political party).
Tied to this, in the Asia-Pacific there’s a tendency to view security in terms of ‘hard power’ (military might, economic indicators) and to neglect the ‘soft power’ potential of ideas and values.
With this in mind, more could be done in the region to encourage greater cooperation and interaction not just along military lines, but also along ideational ones. Scholars have noted, for instance, that post-World War II core military alliances – in particular between the United States and its allies – have been based around ideas as much as material benefits. Shared values such as rule of law, open markets and civil liberties provide the ideological underpinnings for trust and strong relationships. The rise of China as a global power suggests that at least some of these ideas may be superseded by those espoused by Beijing, such as the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. If tensions are to be avoided, greater sensitivity needs to be paid to the content of these ideas and how best to negotiate the differences that exist between Western and Asian thought.
Second, as events in the Middle East have shown, the Internet has facilitated the formation of groups that have in turn leveraged cyberspace to promote their own revolutionary ideas. Formal civic associations appear to be on the decline, and are being replaced by more informal organizations characterized by loose coalitions and ad hoc movements. This doesn’t mean state institutions don’t matter anymore – the absence of formal institutional structures would give birth to other surrogate authorities. But governments may want to think about cost-effective, non-military strategies for pursuing their core interests.
Third, it’s clear that more attention needs to be paid to domestic politics in the Asia-Pacific, and how this affects foreign policy. The rise of social media as a political instrument has contributed to significant political change, as seen in the outcome of elections in countries including Malaysia in 2008 and Singapore this year, where the ruling party saw its traditionally iron grip weakened. Future elections may see the further erosion of support for incumbents, pressure that could help reshape foreign policy.
The proliferation of new communication technologies has created an actual social space in which political matters are conducted, a reality that governments and policy makers will increasingly have to learn to live with. While the nature of political life is unlikely to be radically altered (states will, after all, continue to pursue their own interests), the structures are shifting dramatically. Governments should take heed and adapt.
Today detained: Manning-506 days no trial; Assange-320 days no charge; WikiLeaks-324 days US banking blockade http://wikileaks.org/support.html
have been based around ideas as much as material benefits. Shared values such as rule of law, open markets and civil liberties provide the ideological underpinnings for trust and strong relationships.
Fox and Friends Falsely Reports On Hiroshima WikiLeaks Cable; Claims Apology Was White House Idea
( Tommy Christopher, Mediaite.com, October 13th, 2011)
On Thursday morning’s Fox and Friends, the titular chums revealed a doozy about the WikiLeaks cable that’s getting a lot of attention now. The cable mentions a Japanese official calling an apology for the bombing of Hiroshima a “non-starter,” but contains nary a mention that an apology was ever offered, by President Obama or anyone else in his administration. But that didn’t keep co-hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson from saying it was a White House idea.
Over a chyron that reads, “Cable Shows Plan To Apologize For Hiroshima,” Kilmeade begins by noting how much they “despise” WikiLeaks for compromising our security, then dives right into a classified “Secret” cable.
“The president, in 2009,” Kilmeade said, “was heading to Japan, at which time evidently the White House had a great idea. Let’s apologize for dropping that bomb on Hiroshima.”
He then asked, “Guess who stopped it?”
Co-host Gretchen Carlson took the hand-off, saying, “A Japanese official who said, look, we don’t want any apology for that because actually, we sort of need to keep the nuclear threat alive because of the people — the countries that are betwixt around us, speak of China and maybe North Korea. Those country’s that are a threat or could be to Japan. According to Wikileaks and this report, the Japanese official is the one who contacted the White House and said let’s not apologize for Hiroshima.”
Then, Steve Doocy chimed in to recount the President’s non-proliferation messages at that time, and added, “The Japanese just felt for him to go to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, to make that message, you know,to apologize for bombing them, that was a nonstarter.”
Right at the end, Doocy skeptically reads a White House statement denying there was ever a plan for the President to apologize.
Here’s the part of that report that’s true: Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka did call a Hiroshima apology a “non-starter,” and the White House did issue a statement. None of that other stuff is in the cable in question, or anywhere else. In fact, the cable from Ambassador John Roos is quite explicit as to how the subject of an apology came up. Vice Foreign Minister Yabunaka was already discussing proliferation issues (he favored “something like dismantling all plutonium-based programs at the outset in exchange for normalization of relations” with North Korea), and volunteered the following:
"VFM Yabunaka pointed out that the Japanese public will have high expectations toward President Obama’s visit to Japan in November, as the President enjoys an historic level of popularity among the Japanese people. Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation. He underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public’s expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a “non-starter.” While a simple visit to Hiroshima without fanfare is sufficiently symbolic to convey the right message, it is premature to include such program in the November visit. Yabunaka recommended that the visit in November center mostly in Tokyo, with calls on the Emperor and Prime Minister, as well as some form of public program, such as speeches, an engagement at a university, or a town hall-like meeting with local residents."
So, if an apology was anyone’s “idea,” it was the Japanese diplomat, channeling public speculation. Nothing in there about the President having offered an apology, or about not wanting an apology, or about keeping the nuclear threat alive. All of that stuff was simply false.
I can understand being skeptical, and those who want to read more into this are certainly welcome to take the White House’s statement with a grain of salt. While other reports contained later clarification, they didn’t contain complete falsehoods. But the denial isn’t really important in this case, because there’s absolutely no evidence that what they’re denying ever happened. The White House could put out a statement that says, “President Obama did not create the Earth,” and some people would question it, but that WikiLeaks cable no more supports that assertion than it does Fox and Friends’.
Iran Plot’s WikiLeaks Link
(by Eli Lake | The Daily Beast | October 14, 2011)
If the Iranians needed a motive to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States they may have found it in a diplomatic cable leaked earlier this year by WikiLeaks.
In the April 20, 2008 cable, Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir relayed to America’s No. 3 diplomat in Riyadh that the Saudi king wanted the U.S. to attack Iran’s nuclear program. “He told you to cut off the head of the snake,” the cable quotes al-Jubeir as saying.
The Justice Department on Tuesday released a criminal complaint accusing an Iranian-American man of acting on behalf of Iran’s elite Quds Force to pay the Mexican drug gang Los Zetas to kill al-Jubeir. Iran has vehemently denied any involvement.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) told The Daily Beast on Thursday that the plot against the Saudi diplomat brought to light the threat Iran’s Quds force posed to America and its allies. He also said the leaked cable was one of many reasons that the Iranians sought to kill the Saudi ambassador.
“I am sure it was one of many things,” Rogers told The Daily Beast. “He (al-Jubeir) was seen as one of the most vocal critics of Iran too.” Rogers added that Iran and Saudi Arabia have had tensions between them for a long time, but that Iran “thought the environment was ripe to put this together.”
A federal law enforcement official told The Daily Beast that the government is still trying to determine what “prompted Quds Force to undertake this alleged plot,” and that officials can’t say for sure whether the cable itself was a factor.
Wikileaks defection reports false, says Julian Assange
(Associated Press, London, October 18, 2011)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange described as nonsense reports of defections from his organisation and said his group helped inspire the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Addressing a meeting of the Inter American Press Association in Peru on Monday via Internet video hookup from Britain, Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks’ biggest problem is the ban on processing contributions by credit card companies and PayPal.
‘We have not cut any staff,’ he said, calling it “an exception for most of the newspaper world”.
Though asked for specifics, he did not say how many people WikiLeaks has on staff or offer details about its finances.
“We have been pleasantly in a strong enough financial position to survive entirely on our cash reserves for the past eleven months,” Mr. Assange said.
He said WikiLeaks expects to prevail in legal action it has taken in the European Union against corporations that blocked payments last year after the online secrets-spilling organisation facilitated the release of tens of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables and sensitive documents from the Afghan and Iraq conflicts.
He said the burgeoning Occupy Wall Street movement, which blames corporate greed for the global financial crisis, ‘is in part inspired by our activities’ and claimed “community support and media support for WikiLeaks has never been stronger”.
On Saturday, the 40-year-old Australian spoke to protesters in London during one of scores of global Occupy rallies, calling the international banking system a “recipient of corrupt money”.
As for allegations WikiLeaks may be splintering or weakening, Mr. Assange said reports that circulated last year about 12 people leaving the organisation were ‘absolute nonsense’.
He said WikiLeaks’ sole defection was a German spokesperson he did not name. He was clearly referring to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who Mr. Assange said he ‘suspended’.
Wow - if mainstream media followed Daniel Piotrowski's guidelines we'd save a lot of trees and electrons.
e.g. asking themselves the question: “Is this the right thing to do?”
UN Torture Expert to Report on Bradley Manning Detention
(Talk Radio News Service, October 18, 2011)
A UN expert says he’s had “productive conversations” with American officials about the detention of Bradley Manning, but would not say if the conditions of that detention violated international standards.
UN Special rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez says he will be releasing a report on Manning’s detention in the coming weeks.
“On the one hand he is no longer in solitary confinement, although he spent something like eight months in solitary confinement. But when he was moved to Fort Leavenworth his regime changed.” Mendez told reporters today. “On a daily basis he does communicate and socialize with other inmates in his same category which is a big improvement over the first 8 months.”
Mendez says he is following developments in the case closely, despite being refused a confidential meeting with the alleged Wikileaks source. He said the US Defense Department agreed to let him visit Manning but would not guarantee the conversation would be private.
“Under the rules of the Special Rapporteur and the rules of all the special procedures, that is a condition that we cannot accept.” he said. “I nevertheless told Mr. Manning through his council that if he still wanted to see me I would make an exception, but he also chose not to waive his right to have a private conversation with me.”
Mendez was at the UN to present a report calling on states to end the use of solitary confinement as a punitive measure or prison management technique. He says solitary confinement is permissible in some instances, such as for protective reasons or other short term specific purposes, but is otherwise a inhuman punishment. He also said instances of pre-trial solitary confinement were especially of concern.
“Its used mostly as a way to extort confessions or information leading to the prosecution of others. If this is used to coerce the will of a person in detention it can amount, depending on the severity, to either cruel and degrading treatment or to torture itself.”
Cybercrime threatens free journalism
(by Fuad Huseynzade, Azerbaijan News, October 21, 2011)
In the present-day world journalism which embraces not only professional mass media representatives but also bloggers faces a serious challenge. Sad stories with unveiling secret diplomatic correspondences via WikiLeaks and the active use of social networks to undermine sociopolitical situation in North Africa and Middle East show that crimes in information security (or cybercrimes) do not only hinder free journalist activity but also challenge basic human rights and have even turned into the threat to national security of the states.
What is done in Azerbaijan to address these challenges? And what is done in other countries who have stepped to the path of democratic development? Let’s view the situation in some of these countries.
Fast development of information technologies all over the world, generally in Azerbaijan, causes new type of problems and threats. Just like the use of internet communications, the issue of providing their security is gradually becoming urgent. The reason is that the indicated achievements of the humanity in the field of information technologies are used not only for good purposes and that, in turn, causes the threat of human rights violation.
Cybercrime has already started to show itself in Azerbaijan too and serious work is being done in the legislation in this regard.
Previous speakers have already presented comprehensive information about the works done in this field in our country. However, with your kind permission, I would like to remind you about the main legislative steps in brief.
Thus, the State Program on Combating Cybercrime was adopted in 1998. As the result of changes made to the Criminal Code in 2000, the cybercrime was accepted as a punishable type of crime and structures for combating cybercrimes were established at the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. For example, a unit for combating cybercrimes has been established even under the Ministry of Internal Affairs directly engaged in investigating, preventing and studying cybercrimes. This structure received dozens of complaints by our citizens who become the victims of internet frauds.
In 2005 the National Parliament made changes to the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code, which envisage penalty sanctions and criminal responsibility (up to 3 years) for the violation of database protection. These changes were made by the National Parliament in 2004 in connection with the adoption of the Law “On Legal Protection of Databases”.
Azerbaijan ratified the European Convention on Combating Cybercrime in Azerbaijan on 1 July 2010. Under this convention, Azerbaijan undertakes to improve the legislation in this field and closely co-operate with internet providers.
It is true that this type of crime is just emerging in Azerbaijan in comparison to European countries, as well as the United States. But given the active development of information technologies in the country, this crime may turn into a pressing issue of the nearest future. People, particularly youth, are acquiring computer technologies at a larger scale. That is why it is possible to assume and forecast that the enthusiasm for computer technologies, the use of internet services will consequently lead to the higher number of abusers of technological development than that of today. In turn, this will lead to the violation of human rights.
This is the first step taken by Azerbaijan but not the last one. Based on this, the legislative framework and the measures by relevant state agencies should be reviewed. It is necessary to take into account the practice in foreign states where computer crimes are more prevalent and inflict more serious damage during the development of this system. It is not right to stop efforts just because the number of crimes in the country is current lower than elsewhere in the world.
Current realities dictate the need to adopt a number of definite legislative measures in Azerbaijan, I mean, primarily, the adoption of the law on cybercrime.
It is a specific feature of such crimes that the plaintiff (the victim) may be in one country while the perpetrator may be in another. Practically, the opportunities of internet are unlimited which makes the crime of international concern. Particularly, at present, Armenia has to wage information war against Azerbaijan that has been suffering from the occupation of a part of its land for 20 years. Within this framework, not only hackers but also special agencies of Armenia are involved in attacks against the internet resources of state agencies, public institutions and mass media, dissemination of false information and other types of cyber crimes.
The exchange of international practice and the national personnel development in the information security sector in the countries experienced in this field are of special importance. Skillful law-enforcement officers who know these technologies better than criminals should combat the so-called “talented” perpetrators. A professional should be a hacker too and should understand hackers’ potential conduct. Western countries offer to apply “moral hacking” aimed at checking the system resilience directly (for security).
In mentioning the importance of combining international efforts, one cannot bypass problems that impede it. I also mean the unreliability of the Convention on Combating Cybercrime for which Russia refused to sign the document before. Russian experts gave three reasons for the refusal: first, the document was developed in 2001, and Russian side thought it had become outdated long ago taking into account the development of modern technologies. Secondly, Moscow claims that this convention is the document of the Western countries and thus its effect does not apply to developing countries. Thirdly, Russian experts state that the documents have a clause on the investigation of foreign servers. Just for this reason they mention the importance of holding additional negotiations on issues of cybercrime investigation on a foreign territory that restricts the countries’ rights taking into consideration that the sovereign rights of the countries will be violated.
We should admit that the information space is unified and indivisible. That is why the world countries are condemned to international co-operation. It is necessary to harmonize the respective legislation. It is necessary to establish such a set of international laws that it wins the trust of all actors who combat cybercrimes and allows prosecuting the criminal offenders on the territory of other countries.
The threat of cybercrime in Azerbaijan where the indicators for the development of information technologies and the increase in internet users are very high, shouldn’t be underestimated. While the number of global network users in Azerbaijan in 2003 was 5-10%, this number will be over 50% in 2011, according to projections. This is a European indicator. Proportionally, the combat against cyber threats should also be at a proper level.
Panel debates information freedom in U.S.
(Ashley Yeaman, The Baylor Lariat, October 21, 2011)
A group of distinguished panelists gathered today at the Shelia and Walter Umphrey Law Center and discussed access to information by both the media and general public and transparency within the government.
The panel discussion “Can Freedom of Information Survive U.S. Democracy (and Politics)?” featured moderator Tony Pederson, the Belo Distinguished Chair of Journalism at Southern Methodist University and a 1973 Baylor journalism graduate; Judge Ken Starr, Baylor President and the Louise L. Morrison chair of constitutional law at the Shelia and Walter Umphrey Law Center; Kenneth Bunting, the executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition; Charles L. Overby, the former chair and CEO of Newseum, Freedom Forum and Diversity Institute; and Thomas J. Williams, a partner at the Haynes and Boone Law Firm.
Pederson stressed the importance of access to information in a modern democratic society, saying that “the free flow of information is essential to democracy.”
Overby said the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and press, is a unique right compared to other countries.
“The first amendment really sets the U.S. apart,” Overby said. “We have a big debt to our founding fathers.”
Despite acts to protect freedom of speech and create available access to information, Bunting said that transparency within the government has become an issue his foundation seeks to control, but increasing transparency could be difficult.
“I want to make sure every citizen asserts their right to government access,” Bunting said. “But what I really wish I could change is the mindset of government officials.”
Bunting said that the government has the tendency to act in secrecy.
Questions of what should and should not be available to public access have also been increasingly scrutinized, Starr said.
“Wikileaks is a phenomenon that merits our reflection and discussion. The question is – is it journalism?” Starr said.
Starr said that he takes the position of Wikileaks opponents in that Wikileaks deviates from journalism because they do not seek to minimize harm and consequences in their work.
Pederson agreed, saying that what Julian Assange did “is not journalism at all.”
Taking a step back from federal questions of transparency and free access, Williams discussed issues of privacy, and the difficulties with the Freedom of Information Act as it applies to modern technologies, such as in the case of city council information sent over a smart phone by former Dallas mayor Laura Miller.
“It is a gray area,” Williams said. “It is a difficult area for many public officials.”
This idea of public versus private is one that Overby predicts may come into conflict with the first amendment.
“I think [the first amendment] will be chipped away piece by piece, maybe with the best intentions but with the worst results,” Overby said. “The biggest threat we know today is privacy. Privacy could be used as a political rally for people who want to amend the first amendment.”
