Someone Using A US Senate IP Address Edits Wiki Entry To Change Ed Snowden From 'Dissident' To 'Traitor'
from the it's-Wikipedia,-not-an-opinion-page dept
Last Friday, the Wikipedia entry for Ed Snowden received a small, but charged, edit.
[Click through to embiggen.]
The anonymous editor changed the word "dissident" to "traitor." The edit appeared shortly after Russia announced it would grant Snowden asylum. This would be run-of-the-mill vandalism except for one fact: the IP address linked to the edit traced back to the U.S. Senate.
NetRange: 156.33.0.0 - 156.33.255.255Government employees editorializing entries isn't uncommon. In fact, there's an entire Wikipedia entry devoted to the subject. But editorializing by editors using government IP addresses rarely goes unnoticed. Now, whoever did this may feel Snowden is a traitor but the verdict is still out (quite literally) on that. He's been charged with espionage but until there's actual court proceedings, he's nothing more than a "dissident" (although that term has its problems as well), albeit one the government would like to have back in the US as soon as possible.
CIDR: 156.33.0.0/16
OriginAS: AS3495
NetName: USSAA
NetHandle: NET-156-33-0-0-1
Parent: NET-156-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
RegDate: 1991-12-03
Updated: 2007-04-05
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-156-33-0-0-1
OrgName: United States Senate
OrgId: USSAA
Address: 2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
City: WASHINGTON DC
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20510
Country: US
RegDate: 1991-12-03
Updated: 2011-09-24
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/USSAA
Why bother pointing out such a petty edit? Well, if it wasn't for the IP address, no one would care. But it's a bit obnoxious when someone in the Senate offices somehow feels the government doesn't have enough power and takes it upon themselves to "set the record straight" by taking a swing at Snowden via Wikipedia.
(H/T to a handful of unnamed readers who sent this in.)
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: dissident, ed snowden, senate, traitor, wikipedia edits
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will bet it is an intern playing around during recess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks again Congress for proving what most of us already knew!
Your incompetence is only shadowed by your arrogance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Rogers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passage now reads "Some have referred to Snowden as a hero, whistleblower or even a dissident, while others have described him as a traitor."
I would say that Wikipedia has put the hive mind to work on this one and found a description that is more about fact and free of opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The crowd that things everything the government does is automatically bad probably sees Snowden as a hero for (re)revealing some of the shady activities the most secretive agency on the planet has been doing for quite a long time, along with all the more recent surveillance-y shenanigans.
Then there's the group who see Snowden as a traitor (most of them probably have security clearances and may have a little more faith in the government than others).
For everyone else, he falls into the whistleblower/dissident category.
So it's a pretty accurate description of Snowden's public image right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...(among the many things I love)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Ministry of Truth
It would be funny if not so sad how the US is more and more like Orwell's 1984 every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Ministry of Truth
Kill the yellow plastic ducks since they are a symbol of something that never happened june 4 1989, never had several hundreds or thousands of civilian casualties and never can be remembered for tank man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before we get carried away here
This argument is almost identical to the claims made by Prenda Law and their ilk.
Just because something came an IP address does not necessarily mean the owner of that address was responsible.
That being said, the probability that the change was made by someone in Congress (or more likely, one of their tech-savvy staffers did it for them) is 51% at a minimum, especially considering the content of the wiki article in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before we get carried away here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before we get carried away here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before we get carried away here
Not really.
First of all, the argument usually used by those people is that an individual can be identified by the IP address, which is utterly wrong. That's not the argument here, only that the IP address seems to be related to an organisation. Nobody's saying that the head of the DOJ should be held criminally for his employees' actions, which is usually the claim made in piracy cases against account holders even if they can prove that someone else committed the act of piracy (if one occurred at all).
Secondly, because no individual is being held responsible, there's room for investigation. If the DOJ wished, they could perform an internal investigation and see who within their ranks is doing these things and discipline them or demand that they stop (assuming the actions weren't officially sanctioned, of course). Doing so would satisfy any claims against them, and at least make them look better by publicly realising that such shoddy attempts at altering the discussion will not work. No such soft solutions are offered to Prenda's victims - they're threatened with pay thousands now or pay more later.
Thirdly, it's far less likely that IP spoofing, router hacking, etc. is a serious problem at a place like the DOJ than in a domestic situation - or at least it should be. An professional organisation with enterprise level equipment and full time dedicated IT staff is in a far better place to avoid common security issues than random pensioners who barely know how to connect to the internet, let alone change their router's settings from factory default. So, assuming all of the above staff are competent, they should not fall prey to most common attack vectors and thus it's more likely that the IP is indeed under their control.
Even without the above, there's a huge difference between claiming that an organisation is potentially responsible for some shady activity and holding individuals financially responsible for huge sums of money just because their name's on an account, even if the evidence used is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before we get carried away here
Also a possibility.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So far what I see out of all this, is the US painting itself into a corner for the future. We are becoming what we claimed was repugnant of Soviet Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one in the US government reads the constitution's definition of Treason
The US government has NEITHER of these requirements against Snowden.
1) Two witnesses who saw Snowden commit the crime. (no a ton of people who read about it or investigated it after the crime happened are NOT witnesses)
or
2) A confession by Edward Snowden in open court that he committed Treason.
Without either of these things, Edward Snowden CANNOT be convicted of treason. The Founding Fathers put that in the constitution precisely because the 'treason' charge is a favorite weapon of dictators to get rid of people they don't like, and people who oppose them, by defining Treason as broadly and vaguely as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No one in the US government reads the constitution's definition of Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No one in the US government reads the constitution's definition of Treason
Per Article III, Section 3 (again, already addressed by the OP):
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Even if you could argue the first point, I'd like to see how you'd handle the second.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No one in the US government reads the constitution's definition of Treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edward Snowden,
The guy releasing the information about PRISM to the mainstream media. One of the saviours of Internet along with the likes of Aaron Schwartz, and a historical figure to come.
"Edward Snowden is a hero."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
give him a medal, not a trial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This ought to be good.
Oh, do elaborate, please!
So many of us seem eager to give up our privacy, perhaps on the premise that we're not targets (we will be) and that the department of justice will adjudicate perfectly (they're terrible at it now).
Our nation was founded on the premise that people in the government cannot be trusted, hence the checks and balances system to make sure that no one could wreak too much havoc.
This was before corporations became large enough to capture all three branches, and cause them all to fail.
The barbarians aren't storming the gates yet, mind you, but the gates are looking pretty tattered for their inevitable arrival.
So yes, do tell how Snowden was at fault for revealing to the public how our government is sabotaging our nation's future. This really should be something to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have software to manage sock puppets to put the narrative on social media.
They were hoping no one would notice the edit, and this would complete keeping the public confused.
In the alternate universe where congresscritters minds take them in all of that free time they have while they aren't fixing the fucking country or helping the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://wikiwatchdog.com/?#!search/en/156.33.241.5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could be wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embiggen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Embiggen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cromulant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senate Authority Acts Properly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
snowden edit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Same IP Address Noted by Bloggers for YEARS!
http://english.sxu.edu/sites/kirstein/archives/147
Welcome United States Senate Sergeant at Arms: Peace!
Posted on November 28, 2005 by Peter Kirstein
I think it interesting that three of the hits to my blog came from:
U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
OrgID: USSAA
Address: 2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
City: WASHINGTON DC
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20510
Country: US
They accessed my site from using an Icerocket search engine for “Obama.” I had commented critically on the Illinois junior senator earlier in the day in the posting directly beneath this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senate Sargeant of Arms is Terrance Gainer at that IP Address
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer advised lawmakers Tuesday to refrain from the temptation to take their security into their own hands by carrying firearms following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) this weekend.
"I don't think that's a good idea," Gainer said on ABC News' "Good Morning America," The Hill reported. "I think we should leave the law enforcement and security to those professionals."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In case no one has mentioned this yet.....
http://rcmap.hatnote.com/#en
http://wikistream.inkdroid.org/#wiki=all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/156.33.241.5
meaning there is likely some kind of publicly accessible proxy on there.
That should be a riot when the new felony streaming law ultimately gets written and passed, and someone uses that proxy to send an illegal stream.
That would be something to see the FBI descending on the US Senate building looking for an illegal streamer that was elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott Ritter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden
They violate the 1st Amendment by caging protesters and banning books like “America Deceived II”.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by allowing TSA to grope you.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
Impeach Obama.
Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely banned:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Traitor is more accurate.
A "whistle-blower" makes a report of illegal or unethical malfeasance to the LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULATING the misbehaving parties.
A "dissident" is a rabble-rouser to spreads public malcontent about something with which they disagree, and attempts to build support for their anti-government agenda.
A "traitor" is one who skips both these steps, and takes confidential information which he was sworn to protect, and attempts to sell it to foreign governments in exchange for fame, publicity, cash and favor... ie, purely for personal gain or political activism.
Selling him as a "whistle-blower" is just a misnomer that plays well in the media by fanning fears of government malfeasance, violations of constitutional rights, and privacy.
Did this guy make attempts to file complaints through established oversight channels? Contact his congressman to discuss his concerns? Report violations of law to the FBI? Resign in protest? No. He downloaded as much data as he could take with him, and fled to China, Russia, anywhere that would give him sanctuary.
Most 'traitors' are just maladjusted, paranoid crybabies whose careers aren't turning out to be as stellar as they believe their genius and charisma merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trend
Trend Duvar Kağıtları
Baskı Duvar Kağıtları
Ankara Duvar Kağıtları
[ link to this | view in chronology ]