If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
from the as-if-there-is-any-credibility dept
We've discussed how US political attacks on Julian Assange and Wikileaks have really hurt the US's supposed moral high ground on internet freedom -- something our leaders have long insisted they're in favor of. Yet, with the recent events in Egypt and the attempts to shut down internet communications there, Tim Wu is noting that the federal government should drop the attempt to charge Julian Assange with anything, or else risk looking like total hypocrites:It is time for the United States to drop the case against WikiLeaks. Pressing forward with efforts to prosecute an Internet publisher at home while standing up for an open Internet in Egypt and the world at large is an increasingly tenuous position. The WikiLeaks case endangers the reputation of the United States as a defender of free speech and an open Internet globally, while forcing the Obama administration to take uncomfortable constitutional positions better suited to the Nixon administration. The importance of this issue is hard to overstate: At a time when the Internet is increasingly recognized as a medium of global resistance to authoritarian rule and when protestors in Tahrir square are holding up signs that say "Thank you, Facebook!", the Obama administration and the United States must make sure that they stand on the right side.Of course, it seems unlikely that this will actually happen, but I think that US officials significantly underestimate the ammo they're about to hand critics around the world, and what the resulting backlash will create. This one issue will be thrown up in our faces any time the US steps in or complains about a lack of internet freedom elsewhere. It will make pretty much all statements about the importance of internet freedom around the world a punchline rather than an issue worth taking seriously.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: egypt, free speech, internet freedom, julian assange, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I notice that Assange is so freaked out about the US that he has started sending out "No Gitmo" press releases from his lawyers. That and begging for money on Facebook.
Sad to see how desperate he is, but he earned it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Earned it by doing what? The same thing he (well, Wikileaks, really) did that earned him an Amnesty International Award for the information Wikileaks published for Kenya?
Or are you going to say that his nefarious conspiracy with Manning to undermine the USA is what netted him this little whirlwind?
The rape thing, maybe?
Do tell, which of his evil deeds it the reason for this current life of woe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The rest of the sarcasm, however, stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Second, there is of course the connections between Assange and various political organizations. The information released is done so not to provide transparency, but instead orchestrated to best support the political agenda.
Finally, there is the lack of transparency regarding Assange himself. From the legal case before him to the magic trick of being a "resident of nowhere" to avoid taxation, to the secretive and well hidden methods used to fund Wikileaks and Assange's higher end lifestyle.
As you sow, you shall reap. He has sown mightily, as thus he reaps the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The first part is easy: If it was about transparency, there would be none of this "coming soon" or "we have stuff on a US bank" or "we have stuff on a Swiss bank" or any of that crap. It would just be released and the chips would land where they may. Baiting the press and making subtle threats aganist people, groups, and companies is just really not very productive, and certainly against the idea of openness.
Wikileaks has direct links to an Icelandic government minister (she was part of the Wikileaks for a while, and has appeared with Assange). Wikileaks was offering hosting by The Pirate Party, and in fact are now in "the bunker" next to The Pirate Bay. There are indications that the people supporting Assange in the UK right now are political activists as well.
This is the money. All the moaning and complaining about Wikileaks funding is sort of a misdirection, because Wikileaks wasn't taking any money directly. It was being filtered through non-profit organizations (themselves now under investigation), which allowed people to claim the receipts on their taxes. Most people would not be able to tell you who owns Wikileaks, nor would they be able to explain this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20028090-503983.html
The suggestion is that Wikileaks was taking in $32,136.000 US per year. From where? Any ideas? That isn't chump change. How much is Assange making to run Wikileaks?
The lack of transparency at Wikileaks is shocking, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without all the information, how do you know the thinking behind the release of some of the information over others. Should they have used information as a "don't push us bro" tactic? Probably not. Would they have released the information at some point once the more "important" information was done? Who knows.
I don't know about the connection to the Icelandic government, so i can't really argue against it... some sources would be nice, but I'll let this one slide. If there is a connection between the Icelandic government and Wikileaks, and that connection is used to favor Wikileaks, then yes it's bad. But if a particular government has 'bunkered' a website that the US publicly went gunning for, why would it be a surprise that they did it again for another of our 'enemies'? But that's pure speculation on my part.
For the 'indications that people supporting WL are political activists... ummm... in what sense? I would consider myself a political activist in that I advocate certain ideas and movements, and I support Wikileaks. And where's the citation for those 'indications'?
And I'm not sure what you're on about for the money angle... are they losing it or making it?
Yes, the transparency is woefully lacking for a company that purports openness... but I would argue that the context of openness is important here... a government has a duty to be open to the people who support and fund it. A private company has a duty to the people who invest in it and who are impacted by their presence. I think there should be more transparency to defuse the "But you're not open!!" attack, but I think comparing it to the need for open government is like comparing grapes to watermelons.
And back to my original point... Assange may be underhanded or secretive, but the US is attacking Assange for Wikileak's activities. When those activities were exposing some pretty startling things that the US was doing... and the US still stands on an anti-censorship soap-box, it really doesn't look good. It makes us look like we feel that everyone should be free to express whatever they want... as long as it's not about us.
Sorry if that's a bit rambling... it's been a long day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://icelandpulse.com/icelandreview/893-icelandic-wikileaks-mp-will-fight-us-government.htm l
She was / is part of the wikileaks crew.
http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/12/14/assange-partied-at-us-embassy-in-iceland-mp/
And I'm not sure what you're on about for the money angle... are they losing it or making it?
Assange is claiming that as a result of the various blocks by Paypal and Mastercard, that Wikileaks is losing 600,000 Francs (about $620,000 US dollars) per week. It would suggest 32 million or more of income for Wikileaks, which appears to have little staff, no offices, and little need for anything past hosting.
The UK "politically active" is something you have to go and research to find. You have to look for stories that listed some of the people that turned up at his UK hearings. Plenty of politically active people, some people attached to political parties, etc.
Assange may be underhanded or secretive, but the US is attacking Assange for Wikileak's activities
This is true, but they may be onto something. Wikileaks tries to act like they are all for "truth and transparency", but by being incredibly secretive about themselves, it makes you wonder if another agenda isn't being filled. Is this transparency, or "terrorism by information"?
It is always important to ask the question "why benefits from the release of information"? When you answer that question, you get a better idea of why it is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, I did find this: http://www.mediaite.com/online/jonsdottir-assange-wikileaks/
Now, I'll admit it does feel a bit tabloid-ish, but from the quotes they have, it looks like Birgitta cares more about Wikileaks' mission over Assange himself. Sounds like she's calling him out for some of the same things you are.
It's going to take a lot, given our past actions, to convince me that the US government is after anything other than retribution against someone that gave them a black eye.
I know you meant 'who benefits'... but I think the 'who' in this is the American people... Wikileaks have very publicly shown proof that our government is doing some things that we don't agree with. Distasteful things they need to answer for.
You say that we need to look at who benefits from these actions... how does Assange or Wikileaks benefit from exposing the helicopter footage, the child-prostitution thing, et al? Wikileaks was already 'famous'... they had already been given awards for similar actions. So what's their motive in this?
Finally, back to my original point... I still don't see how the US government pursuing Assange over Wikileaks' actions of leaking the evidence against Assange is him suffering something 'he deserves' for the actions he took. The rest of this conversation has been very informative and interesting, but it didn't really address the main point... the US going after Assange smells of vindictiveness, not justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/15/qa-former-wikileaks-spokeswoman-birgitta-jonsdottir/
"former spokeswoman". She wasn't just a friend, she was (and some say still is) a part of the Wikileaks ogarnization. It should come as no surprise that she lead the political movement in Iceland to create a haven for this type of organization.
You say that we need to look at who benefits from these actions... how does Assange or Wikileaks benefit from exposing the helicopter footage, the child-prostitution thing, et al? Wikileaks was already 'famous'... they had already been given awards for similar actions. So what's their motive in this?
My point exactly: it isn't Wikileaks that benefits. They ones that benefit are the Anti-America, anti-war in Iraq / was in Afghanistan political parties who are looking for leverage. It plays well for any political party who are trying to leverage younger people's distrust of their current governments, and their relationship with the US government.
Not remarkably, it would play very well for The Pirate Party, as an example.
Once you can grasp the idea that there is a political stance, a political undertow to all of this, it is much easier to understand what is really going on. Heck, Mike Masnick hit it the other day without realizing it: Wikileaks is in a very real sense part of the mythical "party of We". The idea being to try to completely discredit any power structures or people in positions of power to push forward "people power" alternatives.
You have to stand back and pay attention to really catch it, but it is out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And for the benefit, I still say that you and I benefit from it. I have not been convinced that the Anit-USA and Anti-War groups were the motivators behind the release of those cables... Yes, their cause is helped by this information being released, but until I see evidence one way or the other, I'm going to put it on the same pedistal as "we went to war in Iraq to install and secure a more pliable goverment to address our oil interests"... possible, but not provable.
But none of that removes the fact that the information that was released was fact... that our government was doing these things. If your enemies are looking for dirt on you, don't hide it deeper. If you avoid getting dirty in the first place, your enemies have nothing on you.
I still say that while there are some political results and probably some political motivations, the actions of Wikileaks in exposing government corruption is a very necessary thing. If Birgitta is going to use the influence to forward her political agenda, then shame on her... but I don't think we should silence these whistles just to stop that.
Now that the info has been released, and Wikileaks has been called into question, perhaps it's now time to have others step up into their place... and learn from WL's major failure by allowing themselves to be transparent.
One final note� this still hasn�t addressed how Assange is behind all this and the US government pursuing him is his comeuppance. Unless you want to say that the whole shebang was Assange piloting an anti-government ship on his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Based on people leaving the Wikileaks organization and distancing themselves from it (including the aforementioned Icelandic politician), it seems that what Wikileaks was suppose to be and what it has become are two different things. It is sort of why I refer to it sometimes as the "Cult of Assange", because it is now something very different from the animal it started out as (and pretends to be).
The lack of transparency for this sort of organization will always be it's downfall, because in the end, it is doing exactly the same things it calls others out for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We all benefit from knowing about abuses by government and those in power (including powerful corporations). It's important to know this information in order to perform our civic duties appropriately and as a defense against further abuses.
Anyone can set up a wikileaks style environment to accept anonymous whistle-blower contributions. Obviously, if someone picks wikileaks rather than some other group, it's very possibly because they trust wikileaks more than alternatives. Feel free to compete with wikileaks (as the New York Times and others have decided to do).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad to see
Good ole misdirection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad to see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad to see
I really hate to argue, but that looks like verbal sleight of hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad to see
You made a bunch of allegations about Assange, one about his high living, but you have not supported those.
Recently the NY Times wrote about their first encounter with Assange in the Guardian offices in the U.K. Their description of him, of his clothing, hardly suggested a high liver, rather someone who knows his use of his talent has made him hot and so, rather than avoiding taxes, he keeps moving about to prevent being tracked.
As I say your bias is showing but it would be much nicer it you openly said you hate Assange because you support this murderous government and their criminal deeds.
Jack Jersawitz
404-892-1238
bigjackjj@yahoo.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that's not even a tinfoil-hat theory. Extraordinary rendition has taken place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is another one of the reasons why I know Assange works from a political agenda, because his actions are exactly those of a politician, trying to protect himself and cover his own ass with misinformation and misdirection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You personally might prefer not to hedge very much, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to take extra precautions, especially when some of the matter concerns abuses by a mighty military or perhaps by people in high places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extradition to the United States
-for fear of then being extradited to the US:
it would come as a surprise to many that the United Kingdom must then not have an extradition treaty with the United States.
in the minds of the conspiratorial minded, why couldn't the man more easily be "spirited away" from the UK than neutral Sweden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extradition to the United States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is why they fear the internet so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credibility
The internet is just a tool in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Credibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link the case please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's widely known that a grand jury has been empaneled and they are looking for ways to charge him. The argument is not that a specific case has been filed yet, but that the government is clearly seeking to charge him with *something*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://bit.ly/gwkWw9
http://bit.ly/ebLrAr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We (the USA) have a long history of this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe a modern day Robin Hood, someone who robs greedy banks and gives all stolen money to poor people is not a crime. Is it?
He can be your hero... but he is still a criminal and possible rapist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pray tell, what crime was committed when Wikileaks published those documents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Publishing classified info is not a crime. Newspapers do it all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You must have missed that paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a difference . . . .
Holding people responsible for the latter does not precludehe former.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a difference . . . .
Are you really trying to suggest that a media organization publishing secrets they've uncovered is illegal?
Would you cite anything that supports that position?
Holding people responsible for the latter does not precludehe former.
Do you honestly believe that punishing publishers of information does not create chilling effects on freedom of speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of Speech
Would it be ok for me or anyone else to release someone else Social Security Number Address and what not on wikileaks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech
The information comes from our government, which represents us, and absent a prevailing reason to keep it secret it should be open to the public, no?
Newspapers publish classified info all the time. It's part of how the media works.
Would it be ok for me or anyone else to release someone else Social Security Number Address and what not on wikileaks?
You do realize that's entirely different. An individual and the government are not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The US is trying to vindicate itself against the release of it's dirty laundry and the prevent anything else being waved around.
Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn't think it's a 'danger to troops or personnel'
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/pentagon-boss-is-not-sweating-wikileaks/
http://www.t echeye.net/security/wikileaks-leak-not-dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Myths and fairy tales.
1. No one has presented any actual evidence that lives have been put at risk by this information.
2. With the SD cables, Wikileaks did not publish the info first, but let newspapers pick and choose which cables to publish -- allowed them to handle the redacting, and similarly redacted the same cables. The idea that it published willy nilly information to put people's lives in danger is simply false.
3. Who decides what info needs to be published? The press have a long tradition of publishing gov't secrets to hold them accountable to the people they represent.
4. The leaks have exposed serious corruption and illegal behavior, including US firms pimping young boys to afghani police.
5. There is no crime for making diplomacy more difficult.
6. US diplomats have argued that this hasn't really made their lives any more difficult anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. Then why would the news organizations choose not to publish or even discuss the vast majority of the documents? Is there that little real information in any of them?
3. The "press" doesn't hire or support third parties doing break and enters or covert operations to get these documents. They work with what they receive, they don't actively offer sanctuary and encourage the actions that lead to those documents coming out.
4. Single US firm, it is a tasteless act. It is also exceptional, not common currency. Are you suggesting that all firms working outside of the US pimp little boys?
5. It would depend on what is done to make it more difficult. Getting spies into the State Department to leak documents, example, would be illegal.
6. US diplomats appear to be under orders from Washington to downplay any Wikileaks effects. However, there have been some relocations ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/07/wikileaks-cables-us-diplomatic-sources ), as well as large numbers of warnings issued. NYT has reported that contacts inside a number of countries are less likely to be made as a result of the wire releases, straining relations in those areas ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/world/07wiki.html ).
I find it funny that you question almost everything, but you are suddenly more than willing to accept the US governement's "Wikileaks isn't hurting us" cover story because it suits your needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Total Bullshit
Nobody wants to draw attention to particular cases.
Gates himself has admitted there are no such cases. QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Mr. Assange had received classified information from a person who was not authorized to release it, and had then published it or caused it to be published in print form, be it a book, newspaper, magazine, or whatever, would people in the US government still be clamoring for his prosecution?
Probably, yes.
If the documents had been dropped on his doorstep by unknown parties, is he part of a conspiracy to steal and distribute state secrets?
Probably, no.
Is he irresponsible for distributing the stolen material?
That depends on whether a person supports the current and previous governments of the country that classified the information in the first place.
If the person who illegally released the information talked to Mr. Assange and said "Here's some really cool stuff that will totally embarrass [country/corporation/vip/media outlet/hollywood starlet], would you like it?" and Mr. Assange said "Well, certainly I would!", would he be a member of a conspiracy to do just that?
Probably, yes.
Would the country/company/person/media outlet/etc... be able to take legal action against Mr. Assange?
That depends on a lot of things like where he was located, local laws, and so on. IANAFL so I don't consider myself qualified to answer this question.
Until some of these questions are answered, the rest is just speculation.
Whether or not the US government is losing the moral high ground on the internet, if it ever had it, depends on a person's opinion of that government. I don't know if anyone has a handle on what the "rest of the world" thinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding Wikileaks and Blackmail
Cablegate is a massive information trove, which wikileaks is releasing in a steady stream, or leak if you like, over the next undetermined amount of time. All of it will be released, the order simply a matter of organization. Giving previews of the good stuff is just icing on the cake.
The "threat" is that if Assange is unable to continue releasing it himself, then the key to an encrypted archive of the entire cablegate will be released, allowing all the information to come out at once.
It isn't a threat, because the EXACT SAME THING happens EITHER WAY. I apologize for the caps lock, but as I veer verbose I must emphasize my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS
The biggest Pro-assange movement is sweedish (theyre also tired of radical feminists with hidden agenda's)
One of the girls had a blog about how to get revenge on guys by accusing them of rape..
There are Emails between the girls where they were planning to hurt Assange.. coz he never called them back lol.. they suddenly discovered that they had been raped a week after the fact)
Sweeden goverment is playing ball.. they have been really accomodating in regards to CIA renditions in the past (big scandal since many European people view the CIA as a terrorist organization)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]