57
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Dec, 2012 09:43 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Are you a professional propagandist, Finn? Because you sure suck at your job. Actually, you probably do.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 07:38 pm
Quote:
Bradley Manning and me: why I cannot regret turning in the WikiLeaks suspect
(Adrian Lamo, The Guardian, 3 January 2013)

While each person brings their own perceptions to an issue, few have generated so much controversy sourced from so little context as my own on the day I electronically met Bradley Manning, in 2010. As with most things, there's more to it than the facts: I write this with the intent that you factor this into your narratives and truths on this issue as you best see fit.

In 2003, when I was 22 years old, I spent a period of time wanted by the FBI, for crimes I felt to be well-intentioned, even warranted. Spending a good deal of time on the Internet exercising what might be best-defined as weaponized curiosity, I'd decided that, as long as I was engaging in unauthorized network intrusion – some call it "hacking"; I personally never did – I might as well go about it in what I believed to be a socially responsible manner. I also thought perhaps to advance the dialogue on responsible disclosure on certain topics.

Internal networks of some of the largest and most infrastructure-critical companies in existence at the time fell victim in this course of conduct; I won't bore you with the list. It's safe to say, at the time, the security community was pretty well aware that this was happening, and my conduct was nothing if not criminally transparent.

What was less widely-known was that my access to a corporate intranet was a means, not an end. Once in – often by proxy (the computer kind) – I had no more access than the freshest intern. I would thereafter spend days mapping out the internal workings, finding further insecure critical systems, picturing the structure in my own mind, and extracting data.

I once spent over 24 hours at a San Francisco Kinkos copy shop doing so for a particular network. Given that I neither requested nor accepted any compensation from the companies involved, I can tell you in retrospect, it was a labor of love, albeit an illegal one.

The reason that this kind of exploration went less documented is that the public largely never saw it. Headlines tend to run to "Lamo hacks [X] corporation network", rather than a "Lamo gains access needed to fire Bernie Ebbers and turn off Bank of [redacted] network". I won't deny that I kept fairly vast amounts of data – I last saw it on a bridge somewhere – but I also kept it in close quarters.

It was kept this way for cause. As I read these documents, as I saw outlined arcana of critical infrastructure chokepoints, previous and existing wiretaps and pen registers, satellite control, offices and personnel of three-letter agencies, lists upon lists of passwords and access codes, how to access emergency communications in the event of a nuclear war, the occasional odd person who was supposed to be dead, etc – the thought that we would all be better-off if the public saw them never occurred to me.

The very reason I was reading these things is that they were beyond the ken of the public, and involved matters that I sometimes knew very little about. I tried to be socially conscious about what I was doing; throwing what I saw to the wind wholesale for public consumption was never an option – any more than going in for the sake of deleting it would have been.

The public would never know how to use it safely, or be informed about its context. As a raw data dump, they literally would not have been able to handle the truth – if in fact I had any truth to give.

It wasn't that I didn't want people to know the truth. It was that I couldn't tell them the truth. I could only tell them facts, and facts without meaning are the very enemy of truth. I said once that lies have no rights against truth. I was wrong. In daily life, it's the truth that's disenfranchised. What fits the popular narrative, what makes an observer happy with the consistency of events, is what is believed.

I could give people facts, but only in a disjointed, abrupt way that would be absorbed by their perception as they best validated their respective storyline – for I had no better one to give them. Against that kind of validation, the truth is only ever a fringe theory. More convenient beliefs are the incumbent.

There's a second tier here. I've said I tried to be socially responsible, even that to respect the privacy of others in my intrusions. But while I honestly had only good intentions, I was not fully informed myself as to the consequences of what I was doing might be for others. I've also said it was a crime for which I would take responsibility if it came to that – and I said that well before the FBI came looking – and that having good intentions about my conduct did not excuse it.

While I've made endless lighthearted fun of the FBI, I understood then and now that they had a mission to fulfill: it was their function to act their part. So when they finally did, I can't say I found the whole thing particularly surprising or in violation of any human right to extract non-public data. I can allow that it was Kafkaesque, but it would have seemed drab any other way. These things happen.

Since my guilty plea in that case, I have majored in journalism, written locally, and enjoyed light press photography as a non-criminal exercise of my curiosity. And I was, in 1998, ordained a ULC minister. I was also pretty regularly contacted by hackers wanting to talk about my story, or theirs, so I developed a disclaimer for conversations that might be entering dubious territory, involving elements of legal privilege available to the clergy and to the press.

On its face, it is understandable that such a disclaimer, if not adhered to, would be overtly duplicitous. But when it was offered, there was no reasonable expectation that merely sentences later, I would be faced with the choice between interdicting the freedom of the man in the IM window, or gambling that no part of literally hundreds of thousands of classified documents would intersect harmfully with the life of any person affected by their contents.

None of this happened in a vacuum; my duty was not to Manning alone. The avalanche had started, as Ambassador Kosh once observed. It was too late for the pebbles to vote. In the intersection between the one and the many, there was no clemency in numbers.

At the time of our conversations, Bradley Manning was 22 years of age – my own age when I made the choice to surrender to federal authorities. He was curious; I hope he still is. He was ideologically motivated from a position he saw as well-intentioned, and he represented his motive as social responsibility in the pursuit of a wider benefit regarding disclosure of certain information. I saw someone very familiar that day, and suddenly felt very old.

As much as ever, I feel that curiosity in itself is no crime. But curiosity is a force, of its own kind. As with any use of force, it must be proportionate, responsible, and ever-informed by the caution that just because we can do a thing, it does not follow that we must do that thing. And like any force, it is agnostic to the intent of its wielder.

When I say that my choice was a consistent one, that's exactly what I mean. I don't say that it was the right one – there were no right choices that day, only less wrong ones. It was cold, it was needful, and it was no one's to make except mine. It hinged on the very values that had led up to that point.

What I decided then I had truly decided long before, in deference to the hubris of believing that the masses only await our touch in order to to be enlightened. In that sense, I remain who I have always been.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 10:06 pm
@wandeljw,
I hope he feels better getting that off his chest. Seems like he's grasping for justification to me - I thought the telling line was:

There were no right choices, just less wrong ones.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jan, 2013 11:44 pm
@wandeljw,
I see no reason why he should regret turning Manning in.

He, as opposed to Manning apparently, had some idea of the seriously negative consequences of releasing classified information and understanding the law (perhaps better than most) chose to see it enforced.

Manning wanted desperately to matter, to be a hero of one sort or another. I don't for a second believe that he had any idea of what his turning over the data would actually mean, let alone any sort of sensible expectation that it would be for the good.

His misfortunate was to have the opportunity and to come into contact with a manipulative, sociopathic narcissist like Julian Assange.

What he imagined would happen after he dumped the ton of classified info in his custody is a question I would like to put to him. Did he really think he would get away with it and be able to smirk in the shadows as Wikileaks did its business, knowing that he was the font, or did he fully expect to be found out and counted on same to assure his mantle of heroism?

It's hard to believe he didn't give some consideration to the possible consequences of his action, but maybe I'm giving him more credit than he deserves.

We live in a nation of laws, and this distinguishes us from more than half of the rest of the world, and has done so for more than 200 years. Other nations have come to our approach over time.

Obviously all of our laws have not been nor are just. America is not perfect by a long shot, but within the world we live, striving to be perfect is a rare thing.

If we are to be a nation of laws and not a nation of the whims of the powerful, we must respect our legal framework if not each and every law.

When confronted with an unjust law, we should defy it, but we should also be prepared to suffer the penalties of doing so. Such a response requires true bravery, because there is certainly no guarantee that exposing the injustice of a law will save any of us from the penalties of breaking it.

Having said this, the law that Manning broke was not unjust. He voluntarily joined the American military and swore an oath to abide by certain strictures.
There is nothing unjust or unreasonable about a nation wanting to keep certain information secret. There is also no way that Manning reviewed all of the information he released and judged it to be unworthy of secrecy.

His motivation for violating his oath and the law by releasing the information had to do with his neuroses, not heroism.

He's a pitiful character who doesn't rise to tragedy.





JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2013 11:31 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
If we are to be a nation of laws and not a nation of the whims of the powerful, we must respect our legal framework if not each and every law.


Jaysus, you are a hypocrite, Finn, not to mention a huge coward. You are not a nation of laws. Your presidents routinely get away with committing war crimes, acts of terrorism, not to mention US laws.

Quote:
Having said this, the law that Manning broke was not unjust. He voluntarily joined the American military and swore an oath to abide by certain strictures.


No soldier is required to follow laws that support war crimes/crimes/terrorism. That oath is absolute drivel, crap, a piece of nothing. It probably mentions upholding the law and the Constitution. Following your twisted logic, that means that the Constitution countenances breaking the law.


Quote:
Obviously all of our laws have not been nor are just. America is not perfect by a long shot, but within the world we live, striving to be perfect is a rare thing.


Gotta get in a line or two of the most perfidious of propaganda, doncha? America, and this certainly includes you, constantly brags about what a great, kind benevolent country it is.

Its history shows, beyond any doubt, that it is light years from how it's portrayed in the usual propaganda.

No one would ask the US to be perfect. It would be just dandy if the US stopped its war crimes, illegal invasions, its ongoing terrorist activities, its thievery, its ... .

Remember, your court system set D Ellsberg free for the very reason that the government was operating dirty. Those people were pikers compared to Bush and the gang.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 05:04 pm
Quote:
Judge Reduces Sentence For Army Private In WikiLeaks Case
(David Dishneau, The Associated Press, January 8, 2013)

A military judge on Tuesday reduced the potential sentence for an Army private accused of sending reams of classified documents to the WikiLeaks website.

Col. Denise Lind made the ruling during a pretrial hearing at Fort Meade for Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Lind found that Manning suffered illegal pretrial punishment during nine months in a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. She awarded a total of 112 days off any prison sentence Manning gets if he is convicted.

Manning was confined to a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. Brig officials say it was to keep him from hurting himself or others.

The judge said that Manning's confinement was "more rigorous than necessary." She added that the conditions "became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests."

Manning faces 22 charges, including aiding the enemy, which carries a maximum of life behind bars. His trial begins March 6.

The 25-year-old intelligence analyst sought to have the charges against him thrown out, arguing that the military held him in unduly punishing pretrial conditions after his 2010 arrest.

Jailers at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., have testified they considered Manning a suicide risk and that they were only trying to keep him from hurting himself and others by keeping him in a windowless, 6-by-8-foot cell for all but one hour a day.

Prosecutors conceded in December that Manning was improperly held on suicide watch for seven days and recommended he get seven days' credit at sentencing.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 05:50 pm
@wandeljw,
Taking the piss are we now wande?

What about the "illegal pretrial punishment"?

Any arrests yet?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 05:50 pm
@wandeljw,
I wonder how long life minus 123 days is?

On aust news they were saying that the prosecution is trying to stop the defence from introducing motive during the case (saying it should only be used at sentencing) whereas the defence want to introduce it and are saying that Manning was selective about what he distributed with the intention of only using material he deemed not to help Al Qaida - and therefore not guilty of the central charge of aiding and abetting the enemy.

Have no idea how anyone proves any of this, but I'm sure there are ways.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2013 05:05 pm
Quote:
Union's invitation to Wikileaks founder prompts protests
(Mark Taylor, Oxford Mail, January 12, 2013)

A row has erupted over Oxford Union’s decision to host controversial Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as a guest speaker.

Protestors plan to picket the event on January 23 where Mr Assange will appear via videolink as part of an awards ceremony honouring whistleblowing.

Simone Webb, president of the Oxford University LGBTQ society (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer), said the Union was ignoring the fact he was a wanted fugitive.

The activist, holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, was granted political asylum in June from an arrest warrant for extradition to Sweden over rape allegations.

Mr Assange, who maintains he is innocent, fears that if he was extradited to Sweden he could then be handed over to the United States and face the death penalty.

Protest organiser Ms Webb, 19, said: “I am holding the protest primarily to highlight the inappropriateness and irony of having someone speak at an awards ceremony supposed to celebrate integrity, justice, courage and truth-seeking who is himself evading the justice process by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy.”

The 189-year-old debating society defended its decision and said it would press ahead.

Spokesman Alex Reut-Hobbs said: “We feel that the Oxford Union, dedicated to upholding freedom of speech and providing a platform for all points of view, is a fitting venue.

“We would encourage those who disagree with him to participate in the question and answer session.”
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 01:14 am
@wandeljw,
Do you know what evidence have been provided on the rape?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 07:39 am
@cicerone imposter,
I do not know the specific evidence. Swedish prosecutors decided to proceed against Assange based on the statements of the two women. The UK Supreme Court denied Assange's appeal and described some of the facts set out by the Swedish prosecutors:
Quote:
The facts set out were sufficient to lead to the inevitable inference of lack of consent to the specific matter alleged against Mr Assange and to the requisite knowledge on his part. In the case of the first offence, Mr Assange lay on AA forcibly restricting her movements to which she did not consent. That is what would have to be proved. If he did those acts it would also be the inevitable inference, to the extent relevant, that he knew that she was not consenting.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 01:16 pm
@wandeljw,
That's hardly "hard" evidence. A woman's scorn.....false accusation.....his word against her word..... ?????????
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 01:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You are making assumptions that the women are not honest.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 01:42 pm
@wandeljw,
We really don't know that, do we? Can you prove they are honest? Please provide evidence of such.

Until then, I have the right to question them.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110724142436AAzhEfJ
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 01:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am not assuming anything. UK courts have ruled that Swedish prosecutors have legitimate cause to extradite Assange.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 04:12 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
You are making assumptions that the women are not honest.


It's a fair enough assumption going off my experience and reading.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 04:43 pm
@wandeljw,
You wrote,
Quote:
You are making assumptions that the women are not honest.


I am not; I'm only questioning whether their charge is legit or not. I'm not assuming anything; just questioning based on frequent false charges by many women about sexual harrassment.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 05:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
UK courts at every stage of Assange's appeal stated that the charges must be taken seriously and that the extradition request is legitimate.

Also, the charges are more serious than harassment. They involve actual sex acts.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 06:00 pm
@wandeljw,
You,
Quote:
They involve actual sex acts.


Where's the proof?

BTW, what courts do is not too impressive from MPOV>.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 07:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You,
Quote:
They involve actual sex acts.


Where's the proof?

BTW, what courts do is not too impressive from MPOV>.


You should quote my entire post.
wandeljw wrote:

UK courts at every stage of Assange's appeal stated that the charges must be taken seriously and that the extradition request is legitimate.

Also, the charges are more serious than harassment. They involve actual sex acts.


My proof that the charges involve actual sex acts is in my earlier post where I quoted from the court's decision:
Quote:
The facts set out were sufficient to lead to the inevitable inference of lack of consent to the specific matter alleged against Mr Assange and to the requisite knowledge on his part. In the case of the first offence, Mr Assange lay on AA forcibly restricting her movements to which she did not consent. That is what would have to be proved. If he did those acts it would also be the inevitable inference, to the extent relevant, that he knew that she was not consenting.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:31:11