Wouldn't want to be Julian Assange this week.
QuoteWikiLeaks Founder Added To The Interpol Wanted List (http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-julian-assange/)
Two days after Internet whistleblower WikiLeaks released 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables to major media organizations including the New York Times and Der Spiegel, international police organization Interpol has placed founder Julian Assange on its wanted list for "Sex Crimes," in a warrant issued by the Public Prosecution Office in Gothenburg, Sweden.
While Assange might be facing criminal charges if he returns to his native Australia and is under investigation in the US for espionage, the Interpol mediated charges here are in connection with rape allegations made by two different Swedish women back in August.
While Interpol makes it clear that its infamous Red Notice list does not function as an international arrest warrant, it does serve the purpose of broadcasting internationally that the person in question is a fugitive and can aide in extradition process.
Assange, who has previously denied the allegations, is rumored to currently be hiding in the United Kingdom, which as of yet has not shown any signs of taking legal action. The @wikileaks Twitter account has remained dormant since news about the release went out.
Rape charges were dropped some days back. This is getting bizarre ...one charge seems to be that he engaged in unprotected sex. If that's a crime deserving of an Interpol Wanted List then it's got to be a REALLY big list.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-sex-scandal-deepens-as-estranged-son-enters-the-fray-20100830-143ao.html
Maybe he just pissed off too many people and now they're gunning for him w/ anything they can use
I may be missing the point somewhere, but whilst his alleged behaviour isn't exactly the exemplar of chivalry, getting an Interpol warrant for not calling someone you had a one nighter with, and refusing to take an STD test? I think a significant percentage of the male poulation of the world (and for that matter, the female population of the world) might be guilty of that at one time or another.
And the refusal to take an STD test thing just confuses me. Why would it matter whether *he* took a test or not? Surely, it's his partner du jour who would need the test, to see if she had contracted anything. If she's worried about her health, it's her medical status that needs determining, not someone elses.
It's behaviour that is morally questionable, sure, but criminal? Really?
Without getting into the political side, I tend to side with Assange's efforts and have so since he first appeared on the international scene. That said, something about wikileaks has always seemed disjointed to me. Everyone involved, protagonists AND antagonists, smell slightly off to me so I've taken a wait-and-see attitude.
>Maybe he just pissed off too many people and now they're gunning for him w/ anything they can use
My thought exactly when I read about it yesterday. A lot of people would like to see him taken down.
>>>>I tend to side with Assange's efforts
I think I'm on the other side
I've been wondering if this isn't some elaborate double game.
Things might be very dangerous right now in NKorea if they are feeling cornered, and the latest leaks might effect the succession - I keep wondering if that is the intent.
Interesting as this thread could become, I think it might be right on the edge of the 'no politics' rule :)
Quotetend to side with Assange's efforts
Me too.
I have no idea whether he is a decent guy or a mass rapist - so I can't say I support him personally, of course. However, for any democracy it is probably on-balance a good idea for there to be a safety valve that insiders can use when the elected powers seek to hide their dishonesty or illegal activities. I would rather there were some damaging leaks than let our (or anyone else's) governments have the total secrecy they would prefer.
I don't think it is a 'partisan politics' issue - at least not for me - I just think that 'fear of leaks' can help keep ALL politicians a little more honest, and a big juicy precedent like this is probably a price worth paying.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/06/wikileaks-lists-sites-key-to-u-s-security/
I thought all the documents on WikiLeaks were already viewable under the Freedom of Information Act. The site just made it easier to find them...
Am I missing something....?
>>missing something
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
Sort of a timeline of new revelations.
Quote from: 4Eyes on December 01, 2010, 04:38:18 PM
Quotetend to side with Assange's efforts
Me too.
Me three.
Also, just heard a piece on NPR about the "rape" charges thing. Which, really, really, really makes very little sense aside from the "pissed enough people off, now they'll use any excuse to lock him up" angle. It doesn't sound like anything happened that would qualify for charges in the US. Being an @sshole is not a crime here, although perhaps the laws are much stricter there?
At any rate, they denied him bail, so I'm sure all the ridiculous details will be all over the news as soon as legal proceedings start in earnest.
From CNN.com
QuoteIt could take dozens of years -- maybe hundreds -- to figure out the combination of letters, numbers and symbols comprising the 256-key code.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/08/wikileaks.poison.pill/index.html?hpt=C1
It's said that it is nearly impossible to crack the code of "The Insurance" file without a key. I have to say, that made me smile. And it makes me smile that the information is scattered so far around the web it cannot be pulled down completely.
I don't like that some of the military informants were named, however. That basically puts a target on their head, and I don't like that. I fear what some foreign governments would do to these people if they captured them...
I remember a long time ago, I watched a tv show about an illegal ham radio station that was playing music and the FCC was trying to shut them down. So they put the transmitter into the back of a jeep and drove around in circles to escape from being "triangulated" and found. That's what this case reminds me of...only on a massive scale.
Quote from: grnidone on December 08, 2010, 10:22:27 PM
I don't like that some of the military informants were named, however. That basically puts a target on their head, and I don't like that. I fear what some foreign governments would do to these people if they captured them...
From what I've heard, the informant/collaborator names were redacted after that was pointed out (no doubt too late for some, but the effort was made), and he'd said the documents they had yet to release were being reviewed line-by-line for any other names that needed to be redacted for the safety of the subjects.
QuoteI remember a long time ago, I watched a tv show about an illegal ham radio station that was playing music and the FCC was trying to shut them down. So they put the transmitter into the back of a jeep and drove around in circles to escape from being "triangulated" and found. That's what this case reminds me of...only on a massive scale.
Sounds exactly like the end of "Pump Up The Volume". heh Either that's what you're remembering, or they based the end of the movie on what you're thinking of?
I think he's brilliant
Yes
The fallout from all of this is just fscking hilarious at the moment. All the news organizations getting all excited about some DDOS attacks... talking ever-so-gravely about that nefarious "internet organization known as Anonymous," it's just amusing the hell out of me. I do hope it drags on a bit longer... ;D
I dunno, seems pretty f-ing stupid to me.
You want to promote open information, great.
Hacking corporate sites because they don't back you? that's childish.
Doesn't help your cause.
The whole thing seems f-ing stupid.
The press is spending so much time on Assange (sp?) but the real story here, IMO, is how did all these allegedly confidential memos got into the hands of an Army Private and who was in charge of securing these documents in the first place.
QuoteDoesn't help your cause.
Anything that keeps the story in the news helps 'their' cause - as does anything that makes 'big business' realise that there will be commercial implications to their caving in to government pressure.
If I were in 'their' camp, and my main skill as in organising DDOS attacks, then that is what I would do - in an uneven battle, one has to use whatever small advantages one has.
Quote from: agerhart on December 10, 2010, 05:42:20 AM
Hacking corporate sites because they don't back you? that's childish.
Assange isn't doing any hacking sitting in jail. He has zero control over what anon does with their DDOS scripts.
Blaming him for the website takedowns makes as much sense as blaming him for the US government's poor control over their 'confidential' information.
Quote from: Bradthe real story here, IMO, is how did all these allegedly confidential memos got into the hands of an Army Private and who was in charge of securing these documents in the first place.
Apparently the network allowed anyone logged in to download data onto USB devices, to facilitate information sharing with our allies. And, it would seem, anyone else the copier wants to hand it out to.
>>information sharing with our allies
That worked! :D
Seriously, I think the Australian Foreign Minister nailed it when he said the real persons at fault are those in Washington who did not make sure the information was secure.
The fact that 2.5m people had legal access to the cables makes me wonder if this isn't part of a bigger game being played by the powers that be.
QuoteBlaming him for the website takedowns
I didn't say it was his fault. The people doing the hacking are stupid.
Quotethe real persons at fault are those in Washington who did not make sure the information was secure.
Agree 100%
Quote from: Peter on December 11, 2010, 01:56:10 PM
The fact that 2.5m people had legal access to the cables makes me wonder if this isn't part of a bigger game being played by the powers that be.
2.5m?! I heard "thousands" and thought that was bad enough. If it was actually 2.5m, I think any claim by the government that the cables were in ANY way sensitive or high security is bullshit. Frankly, the fact that people were allowed to download files to removable media makes me think the same, but giving 2.5m people the ability to do so is just absurd.
Quote from: agerhart on December 11, 2010, 05:02:52 PM
I didn't say it was his fault. The people doing the hacking are stupid.
Ahh, when you said "because they don't back you" it sounded as though you were associating the script kiddies directly to Assange and/or Wikileaks. My bad.
Calling them hackers is giving them a bit much credit, considering a copy of the DDOS script was available to be run via web form on Thursday. Hell, it's probably still available at a different location.
QuoteThe people doing the hacking are stupid.
Nah - in the mix of all concerned, they are no more stupid than any of the other parties, and certainly less stupid than most involved.
The people who let the data out?
The Swedish legal system for being manipulated?
Sarah Palin for accusing Assange (an Australian) of un-American activities (ermm... well, just... ermm}
The Multinational finance companies for acting against him 'on order'
....etc.... there is a lot of stupidity going on in that bunch. DDOS against some of those attacking WikiLeaks does't seem stupid at all compared to them.
Julian Assange is granted bail.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/14/wikileaks-julian-assange-court-appeal-live-updates
This is a turning point...I'm starting to get my news from The Core. ;D
He was granted bail, but he's still in the slammer until he can raise the funds?
This was a very smart and timely thing to do:
http://www.zazzle.com/julian+assange+tshirts
BWAHA!: http://www.zazzle.com/i_fucked_julian_assange_tshirt-235719878160915874
Quote from: bill on December 15, 2010, 01:36:01 AM
He was granted bail, but he's still in the slammer until he can raise the funds?
And Sweden has appealed the bail decision... but Michael Moore offered to pay his bail. hehe I don't think he's actually been released yet though.
Gack - its a bloody mess whatever happens now.
Stating the obvious, we need an avenue like WikiLeaks as we simply can't trust any of our governments, but we also need to be able to protect some information.
Can't trust one party to start telling the truth when they should, and the other to stop telling the truth when they should.
I can't help feeling that whoever comes out on top it isn't going to be 'a good thing'.
Quote from: 4Eyes on December 15, 2010, 02:07:05 AM
Stating the obvious, we need an avenue like WikiLeaks as we simply can't trust any of our governments, but we also need to be able to protect some information.
Bit of a catch 22 there, eh? All in all, I'd err on the side of wikileaks rather than the side of trusting government. Governments have a really bad track record with the whole "treating human beings with respect and decency" thing.
Normally, I would agree with you on this.. it is a very powerful argument - can't argue with history etc
.. my concern though, is that at least governments are elected - however flawed the electoral system may be - WikiLeaks and Assange aren't.
They can be selective about what they release and when to suit whatever agenda they may have.
Even if it were the case that we agreed with that agenda, the precedent is set, and the next 'leaks' organisation may have a very different agenda.
Its a tricky one.
Governments have agendas, media outlets have agendas, Assange may well have an agenda... Sure. But at least he adds a new agenda to the mix in that case, because I'm about sick of having only the gov't & established media agendas to choose from.
Wikileaks (which is not only Assange, after all) is at least an interesting addition to the 'fourth estate' role the media is said to occupy... And the media choosing what to print and what not to? That's hardly anything new, is it?
[added] Oh, and apparently OpenLeaks is the next competing site, to be founded by a former WikiLeaks collaborator. So, probably whatever agenda they may or may not have, it'd be similar to Assange's outfit.
QuoteAnd the media choosing what to print and what not to? That's hardly anything new, is it?
.. that is the point - so far the 'conventional media' has been based in a physical location, easily subjected to local legislation.
Elected governments pass laws to control those bits of the media that are within their control etc.
Internet based 'leaks' sites are more difficult to control, and more difficult to legislate against.
For example, if it had been a national newspaper trying to release the leaks, a Govt could have blocked them on national security grounds.
It is, of course, still just a matter of degree, and I expect the 'Governments' to win in the end, but in doing so they will establish precedents that are worrying.
Quote.. that is the point - so far the 'conventional media' has been based in a physical location, easily subjected to local legislation.
Nono, I see your point there, but the point I was trying to make is that the media already regularly doesn't run important stories because of fear of advertiser backlash, to say nothing of blatantly politically motivated outlets like Fox News over here. So, having a 'media' source like wikileaks potentially having an agenda really isn't a new issue. No matter what media source you're looking at, if you don't know their agenda(s), you can't interpret their output accurately.
Having an extra-legal media source seems like a huge bonus to me, and Assange's political bias seems pretty obviously hacker/anti-establishment, so that's not hard to interpret at all.
Yes - I am broadly in favour of more independence - if that is indeed what wikileaks represent - as a balance against the tame local media - but I fear that is not where this is going.
I suspect that one of two things will happen:
* Assange will get jailed, Wikileaks will get demonized or shut down, and any new version will be labelled by Governments as a 'criminal organisation' and attacked the same way.
When Governments start working together to keep their dirty linen hidden, that is not good.
* Assange gets off scot free, governments made to look foolish (hoorah!) .... 'leaks sites' thrive, and secrets get leaked at the will of the site owners.
This is not good - it sounds it initially, but long term it isn't - there is some information that needs to be kept secure.
I am not really arguing with you here - you know pretty well where I sit on these issues - but I just think this may end up as 'too much of a good thing' on the 'freedom of information' front - although, more likely, Assange will be swatted like a bug with a raft of trumped up rape and spying charges, and we will be left worse off than before.
Well, I'm hoping for the latter. If it ends up being the former, we may well see whatever the hell an "infowar" really is... and it won't be limited to DDOS attacks, I'm afraid.