WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

WikiLeaks: Internet backlash follows US pressure against whistleblowing site

Individuals redirecting parts of their own sites to Swedish internet host amid 'censorship'


WikiLeaks WikiLeaks: American pressure to dissuade companies in the US from supporting the WikiLeaks website has led to an online backlash. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

American pressure to dissuade companies in the US from supporting the WikiLeaks website has led to an online backlash in which individuals are redirecting parts of their own sites to its Swedish internet host.

Since early on Friday morning, it has been impossible to reach WikiLeaks by typing wikileaks.org into a web browser because everyDNS, which would redirect queries for the string "wikileaks.org" to that machine address, removed its support for Wikileaks, claiming that it had broken its terms of service by being the target of a huge hacker attack. (See What is DNS?)

Without a DNS record, it is only possible to reach WikiLeaks by typing in the string of numbers which, for most web users, is too unmemorable to make it feasible.

That, campaigners say, points to the principal weakness in the internet's pyramidial DNS setup, where a limited number of site registrars can control whether a site is findable by name or not.

Website hosts are being encouraged to add a "/wikileaks" directory into their sites, redirecting to which redirects to http://88.80.13.160/, run by the Swedish hosting company Bahnhof.

At present, that location redirects users to a Wikleaks page at http://213.251.145.96/, which is run by a French company, but if pressure from the French government pushes Wikileaks off that host, it will still have the Swedish location.

At the same time, scores of sites "mirroring" WikiLeaks have sprung up – by lunchtime today, the list was 74-strong and contained sites that have the same content as WikiLeaks and – crucially – link to the downloads of its leaks of 250,000 US diplomatic cables.

The backlash has also gained its own tag on the microblogging service Twitter, where people who have linked to the main site are using the hashtag #imwikileaks.

The technical details of how to make a site's subdirectory point directly to the WikiLeaks site are described by Paul Carvill, a British developer, and Jamie McClelland.

"I've done this as a simple gesture of my support for WikiLeaks and my opposition to arbitrary censorship of the web by governments and corporations," Carvill says on his page, while McLelland says that adding his support "seems like a good way for us all to really pitch in and share the risk that the folks at WikiLeaks are taking all by themselves".

And so this is Christmas

KELLIE TRANTER

At this time of year we should spend a few minutes mulling over John Lennon's question:

And so this is Christmas.

And what have we done?

Political "spin" continues relentlessly, both nationally and internationally, the euphemism circumventing mendacity's moral turpitude. Apparently lying's politically and socially acceptable that way.

We continue grovelling to an international bully which speaks truthfully when behind our backs it describes our country as not "packing enough punch", and when "outed" says of itself: "….governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets…" That makes us an accomplice but not an ally, and there is a difference.

It's thanks mainly to Julian Assange and Wikileaks that people around the world finally have a little insight into the brutality and venality of US foreign policy. Assanges' quest to let people all over the world know the truth and his refusal to stand mute in the face of duplicity and injustice deserve our praise. Moral courage of that calibre is rarely seen nowadays, and people need to know what is really happening and why. If he didn't publish these documents you can bet we would never have known the truths they contain.

Yet a concerted program of personal vilification and an international manhunt continues. After all, hell hath no fury like bruised, frustrated Capitol Hill and Wall Street egos. Do political leaders really believe that Assange is the only person on the planet who wants governments to be open, transparent and accountable? Do they think he's the only person who understands that our governments are almost pathologically incapable of telling the truth, or that they authorise the commission of despicable acts in our names behind hypocritical calls to freedom and democracy?

Now Assange, an Australian citizen, is calling home. And guess what response he gets? Prime Minister Gillard condemns him, Attorney General McClelland considers cancelling his passport and - surprise, surprise - Tony Abbott supports his prosecution. It looks strikingly similar to the good old "bipartisan support" that came out for the invasion and continuing destruction in Afghanistan and for the abandonment of David Hicks. Assange's thoughts of family and home are not unnatural when things seem to be closing in, so it's important that Australians know that "the real Julia" - the one who likes footy and mates and kids and the Aussie spirit of a fair go - will be answering the call from one Australian to another.

Next, the war we continue fighting to "bring democracy and peace" to the innocent and impoverished men, women and children of Afghanistan. Ten years to go. Will that occupy conversations around Australian Christmas tables this year? What about breaches of the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, the Geneva Protocol and numerous subsequent treaties, principles of distinction and proportionality and customary international law. What do you care? Please yourselves. Yeah, I'll pass the turkey.

Did you know that less than one in 10 Afghans were aware of the 9/11 attacks and their precipitation of the war in Afghanistan? An International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) survey showed 92 per cent had never heard of the events of September 11, but four in 10 Afghans believed the US is on their soil to "destroy Islam or occupy Afghanistan." Good job of winning the "hearts and minds"!

Back at home we've had another year of the privatisation of essential services, with the details hidden from the public - as usual - under the banner of "commercial in confidence". What rubbish is this, when taxpayers inevitably underwrite the deal, guaranteeing the "free marketeers" a sure profit or paying a fortune in "compensation" when the government does a backflip?

And good old Aussie entrepreneurship's still going strong. Unregulated water brokers drum up the idea of establishing a water tender. If the tender is successful who's the buyer going to be? A "good corporate citizen" promising to keep water and food prices affordable? I've been asked whether the Farmers Federation will have enough foresight to purchase the water for its members so farmers can keep growing food: I can only wonder, will they? And will they have enough money to win a bidding war?

Apart from leaving it to the market, good governance in Australia continues to involve scrapping successful services not generated from the belly of the political party of the day, removing the voice of those directly affected by political decisions, wastefully duplicating services because of lack of communication, irregular data collection and inadequate systems to support evidence based decision making and funding models that make organizations - even in the welfare sector - compete rather than work together. A particularly helpful model for society's most vulnerable? Anyway, isn't economic growth the answer to all of our problems?

Donella Meadows, a famous systems thinker, pointed out that:
…the new world trade system was explained to me. It is a system with rules designed by corporations, run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules exclude almost any feedback from any other sector of society. Most of its meetings are closed even to the press (no information flow, no feedback). It forces nations into positive loops "racing to the bottom," competing with each other to weaken environmental and social safeguards in order to attract investment and trade. It's a recipe for unleashing "success to the successful" loops, until they generate enormous accumulations of power and huge centralized planning systems that will destroy themselves…


If we look around us, isn't that synopsis accurate?

We're full of self congratulation about our escape from the global financial crisis, but have we really sailed through? Have our governments and the "big four" banks made a full and frank disclosure of their contingent liabilities? All of them, I mean, including those flowing from off balance sheet transactions? Disclosing their full exposure in the derivatives market isn't a bad place for them to start, and that certainly isn't where the confessions should stop.

All in all it's hard to be much impressed by what we've done in 2010, and by what we haven't. Perhaps if society at all levels heeds what Lennon said - "Let's stop all the fight" - we'll be able to look forward to 2011 and "…hope it's a good one, Without any fear".

Quote:

If he had the noble goal of exposing war criminals and government crimes, why didn't he take care not to endanger lives. He indiscriminately collected and dumped any information he could get his hands on.

I disagree, wandel

Prior to the release of the Wikileaks, Julian Assange had corresponded with US authorities about their possible concerns about the leaks. If they were as concerned about "putting lives at risk" as they keep saying they are, they had the opportunity to assist in vetting the masses of material to ensure that this didn't occur. But they chose not to .

Quote:

The letter from the US state department's legal advisor Harold Koh was a response to correspondence from Mr Assange, who had written to the US ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman.

Mr Assange had asked which individuals would be put at risk by the leak, the state department said.

A senior American official told the BBC that Mr Assange was offering to negotiate over limited redactions.

In response, Mr Koh demanded that Wikileaks return official documents to the US government.

"We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained US government classified materials," Mr Koh stated in the letter.

Mr Koh's letter adds that the publication of the documents would endanger the lives of "countless" individuals - from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers - and put US military operations at risk.

Correspondents say the letter is a rare move for the US administration, and reflects the government's concern about the implications of the possible leak.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11856122

Also, Wikileaks released the material only to responsible media organizations like De Spiegel, the Guardian, etc.
And they, in turn, have carefully vetted the available material to ensure that lives would not be put at risk. We have had access to only a tiny proportion of the available material.
The NYTimes, in responses to readers' questions about this concern (in its Q & A blog) said it has chosen not to publish a number of the leaks for that very reason.

If he had the noble goal of exposing war criminals and government crimes, why didn't he take care not to endanger lives. He indiscriminately collected and dumped any information he could get his hands on.

... and I am saying that he did, in fact, make an effort to ensure that peoples' lives weren't endangered via what was published. In response to your comment.:

Quote:

If he had the noble goal of exposing war criminals and government crimes, why didn't he take care not to endanger lives. He indiscriminately collected and dumped any information he could get his hands on.

I am a bit surprised that Julian Assange hasn't prepared himself better
for the repercussions and obstacles coming his way prior to releasing these cables. Surely, he must have knows that the United States will use its powers
and all resources available to bring him and his wikileaks down. Why did
he use Amazon as a webhost fully knowing that an american company like Amazon will succumb to its government's pressures.

Assange should have gotten his financial resources lined up and made his
escape route resp. his undisclosed location in an area that does not extradite
to the United States. Did he not reckon that once the cables were made
public, that the implications will be very forceful?

I, for one, have never trusted out government.

.....On the charges his client was facing in Sweden, Mr Stephens (one of Assange's lawyers) said the original allegation of rape brought against his client had been dropped and that he had now been charged with "sex by surprise".

"Originally the allegation was one of rape and many will remember that but of course what has not been reported is that the Swedish court of appeal dismissed the case of rape and said the facts don’t support it," he said.

"They are now investigating something called sex by surprise."

"It is the very first time Sweden has actually sought extradition for this charge … it is a fairly minor charge and usually carries something like a 5000 Krone penalty."

Yesterday, Mr Stephens , had expressed concern that the pursuit of Mr Assange had "political motivations", in comments to the BBC.

Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, who is handling the rape allegations in Sweden, said: "I can very clearly say no, there is nothing at all of that nature."

"This investigation has proceeded perfectly normally without any political pressure of any kind," Ms Ny said.

"It is completely independent," she added. ....