Pointless Question Of The Week: Was Tunisia A 'Twitter' Or 'Wikileaks' Revolution?

from the dumb-question dept

Like many people, last week, I was paying attention to the events going on in Tunisia, mostly via following some Twitter feeds. However, we received a number of submissions and requests suggesting we write about the so-called "Twitter revolution" or "Wikileaks revolution." However, I think it's both silly and demeaning to try to diminish what's actually happening in Tunisia by trying to name what happened after one of the various elements that may have played a role in what's happening. We've seen this before. Over in Iran, of course, there was lots of talk about how Twitter "played a role" in the uprising, and it was then dismissed by people because things didn't really change (and it's arguable how much of a role it really played). Of course, as Clay Shirky has pointed out, new means of communication have certainly been useful in organizing political protests.

I didn't write anything about this last week, because it seemed that what was going on was too chaotic to actually know -- and the fact that people were jumping up and giving credit to Twitter or Wikileaks seemed more like an attempt to claim credit, when it was clearly way too early and way too nuanced to say. Thus, I tend to agree with folks like Jillian York, who says that it's simply way too early to understand the impact of Twitter or Wikileaks (if anything) on this event.

Furthermore, I'd argue that focusing on the role of either is silly and pointless. In the end, any sort of political uprising starts with the people involved. That they may use new tools of communication -- either with each other or the outside world -- is always interesting, and important to understand, but should never be considered the root underlying cause of the larger event. Ethan Zuckerman claims that Twitter can take "some credit" for the events "but not all of it," to which I would ask: in what political uprising can you ever claim that any one particular tool or technology deserves all of the credit. The world doesn't work that way. This isn't to diminish how either Twitter or Wikileaks might have world changing impacts (or have already), but trying to pigeonhole a much larger event into a bucket with a label would be a mistake.

Filed Under: tunisia
Companies: twitter, wikileaks

Treasury Dept. Won't Put Wikileaks On Terrorist List; Tells Rep. King It Doesn't Meet The Criteria

from the not-everyone's-crazy dept

Following the request by Rep. Peter King that the Treasury Department list Wikileaks and Julian Assange on various terrorist/organized crime lists, which would prohibit US companies from dealing with them, the Treasury Department has, quite reasonably, said it will not do that. A spokesperson noted that there is not nearly enough evidence for such a designation:

"We do not have evidence at this time as to Jullian Assange or WikiLeaks meeting criteria under which OFAC [the Office of Foreign Assets Control] may designate persons and place them on the SDN [Specially Designated Nationals] list."

Filed Under: peter king, treasury department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Rep. Darrell Issa -- Who Says Investigating Wikileaks Is A Priority -- Sets Up His Own Whistleblower Site

from the say-what-now? dept

There seems to be a bit of confusion among the new leadership in the House concerning just what Wikileaks does. Just over a week ago or so, we noted that Rep. Darrell Issa, who is heading the "oversight committee" had declared that investigating Wikileaks was a major priority for Congress, because if the US government didn't attack back at Wikileaks, the world would "laugh" at how the US had become a "paper tiger."

And yet... days later, Issa has announced his very own "whistleblower" site, in which he's asking government officials and the public to blow the whistle on government fraud and abuse.

This is, apparently, not a joke.

So he's attacking Wikileaks -- which does the same thing, asking people to highlight fraud and abuse worldwide -- and then sets up his own website to do the same thing. Maybe he just didn't want the competition? Of course, some will point out that there are serious differences. Wikileaks releases certain things it receives publicly. It's not at all clear what Issa will do with whatever he receives. Of course, that seems to make Wikileaks seem like a lot more effective solution if you're really trying to expose government fraud and abuse.

Filed Under: darrell issa, whistleblowing, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Florida Man Sues Wikileaks Over The Personal Distress It Caused Him

from the enterprisingly-wasteful dept

While the US government is struggling to come up with something (anything!) to bring Julian Assange to court over, one man in Florida has taken matters into his own hands. Slashdot points us to the news that a guy in Florida, David Pitchford, has apparently sued Wikileaks for all the distress it has caused him, claiming that the leaks have resulted in "hypertension," "depression" and "living in fear of being stricken by another heart attack and/or stroke" as a result of living "in fear of being on the brink of another nuclear [sic] WAR."' The full complaint is embedded below, and it's quite amusing. He's also afraid that others must be similarly suffering, and the impact of this will be to "diminish the Medicaid benifits [sic] that the Plainiff [sic] Depennds [sic] apon [sic] for health care in that the United States is Out of money." Mr. Pitchford is demanding (respectfully) $150 million dollars (well, "dollors" according to him).

According to the Superkuh blog, Mr. Pitchford in the past has tried similar tactics in suing Osama bin Laden. Of course, he also threatened to sue Superkuh for distress, after the blogger indicated he did not agree with Pitchford's lawsuits. It appears he likes to sue. Pitchford indicated that he didn't believe "any internet based medium could be a real member of the press." Another amusing bit was when Superkuh pointed out Wikileaks' relationship with various large media organizations such as the Guardian. In the lawsuit complaint, you can see that Pitchford claims that "after exhaustive research" he has determined that Wikileaks and Assange "have no known association with any known jourlism [sic] entity with the exception of that which is self proclaimed." You would think that an association with The Guardian or other major newspapers (including, in the past, the NY Times) would point out the problem with this line of argument. Instead, Pitchford suggested he planned to sue The Guardian too. Oh, and the Associated Press as well, which is guilty of talking about the leaks. In other words, don't expect this lawsuit to get any traction at all.

Filed Under: personal distress, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

EU MPs Investigating US Info Snooping To See If It Violates EU Privacy Laws

from the whoops dept

Via Slashdot, we learn that a group of European MPs are apparently asking the European Commission to determine if the US government violated EU privacy rules with its attempt to get info from Twitter on various Wikileaks associates. We had already noted that Icelandic officials were upset with the US, since one of the accounts under investigation was an Icelandic Member of Parliament.

Of course, I have to say that as troubling as the US government's investigation appears to be, this particular response seems a little silly. The request for information was to a US company for info on US servers. That European users were involved really shouldn't much matter. Now, there is a somewhat silly "safe harbor" system that the Commerce Department has set up for American companies to get around the fact that the EU Privacy Directive forbids the transfer of personal info from Europeans to non-EU countries unless they have similar privacy laws (the US does not). However, I don't think the safe harbor would apply here either. This seems more like political grandstanding by some EU politicians against the US. I agree that there are problems with the investigation, but worrying about the EU privacy directive seems like a bit of a stretch.

Filed Under: eu, privacy, wikileaks
Companies: twitter, wikileaks

Rep. Peter King Wants Treasury Dept. To Put Wikileaks On Terrorist List

from the overreact-much? dept

Apparently Rep. Peter King is in a competition with Senator Joe Lieberman to see who can overreact more to Wikileaks. It seems like a neck-and-neck competition, with Peter King's brand of craziness potentially taking the lead. King, of course, was the guy who insisted that Wikileaks should be declared a terrorist organization and claimed (with nothing whatsoever to back this up) that the cable leak was worse than a military attack. His latest move is to ask Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to add Wikileaks to the Treasury Department's "Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List," which is usually used to designate terrorist and organized crime operations.

So while Lieberman merely used political pressure to get companies to block or censor Wikileaks, King wants it to become official government policy that no US companies or individuals should be doing anything with Wikileaks. Overreact much?

Filed Under: peter king, terrorist list, timothy geithner, treasury department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers

from the witch-hunts dept

Computer security expert (and US citizen) Jacob Appelbaum, who is well known for his work on Tor, had been having some issues lately concerning his involvement as a volunteer with Wikileaks. He was among those who had their info requested by the Feds via Twitter. And he's been having issues traveling to and from the US lately. Last July, he was detained upon flying into the country and it looks like something similar has happened again, where he was detained, searched and questioned after flying into Seattle from a vacation in Icleand.

He was careful to travel with no computers or gadgets whatsoever, other than some USB keys with encrypted versions of the Bill of Rights. He noted that the initial customs agent, to whom he handed over the declaration form was friendly until she pulled up his account, and from there things went sour. He asked to speak to a lawyer, which was denied on the grounds that he wasn't being arrested.

Apparently he was told initially that he was pulled aside as part of a "random" search, which leads Appelbaum to joke about the actual randomness -- which was also shown to be false when one of the agents mentioned his pre-flight Twitter activity.. He also pointed out that those detaining him were disappointed that he wasn't traveling with computers or mobile phones, and that Iceland had plenty of computers, such that he didn't need to bring his own.

In the end, after about half an hour's detention and search, they did let him go. Some might consider that to not be that big of a deal, but it clearly has something of a chilling effect. He notes that the mental stress of being in such a situation is not at all enjoyable. This is unfortunate. If he's done something wrong, arrest him. If he has not, harassing him every time he crosses the border is just obnoxious.

Filed Under: customs, detained, jacob applebaum, searches
Companies: wikileaks

Debunking The Myth That Wikileaks Cable Leaks Haven't Been Important

from the revealing-serious-problems dept

Whatever you might think of Wikileaks -- and it's difficult to deny that it is a severely flawed operation in many ways -- one of the sillier critiques of the recent release of secure State Department cables is the claim that these cables didn't really reveal anything important. Thankfully, the EFF has put together a nice list of key areas where the release of the cables has helped shine light on important things, while benefiting the public discourse around those topics. Included in the list are things like US contractor DynCorp pimping young boys to Afghani police, as well as the US's involvement in trying to get Spain to pass Hollywood-friendly copyright laws. It's been argued that revealing that info publicly helped kill that Spanish copyright reform.

The more you read about what's been released, the harder and harder it is to claim that these leaks haven't added to the public discussion on some key, important topics. In many cases, the argument that these things had to be kept secret is not supported by the facts. It's true that some of this information was embarrassing, but the State Department's job is not to prevent embarrassing info from being discussed.

Filed Under: wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible

from the surprising dept

The mainstream press has had a bit of a love-hate affair with Wikileaks over the past few months, often conflating some of the issues with Julian Assange with the overall operation itself. But what's been really troubling is how quiet the press has mainly been about the treatment of Bradley Manning, which is so severe that many people consider it to qualify as torture. Even the UN is now investigating whether the treatment qualifies as torture. Of course, even if you don't consider it torture, it's pretty clear that the treatment is designed to punish Manning, despite no trial and no conviction (or, perhaps, it's being used to pressure him to implicate Julian Assange in a potential conspiracy that might not actually exist).

However, it's nice to see at least some in the press realize this is a serious problem. The LA Times has an editorial suggesting that this treatment of Manning is clearly indefensible, and should be stopped. It does not come out and say he's being tortured and says that it's fine to punish Manning (within the limits of the law) if he's convicted, but that to do so prior to any conviction is immensely problematic:

Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions. But regardless of one's view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which he is being held are indefensible.

There's no reason that Manning can't be held under more reasonable conditions. It's sad that our government appears to not be willing to allow that to happen.

Filed Under: bradley manning, press, treatment, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Kudos To Twitter For Not Just Rolling Over When The US Gov't Asked For Info

from the nice-to-see dept

While plenty of companies (*cough* AT&T *cough*), seem to bend over backwards to give the government more info than is required by law, it's nice to see that Twitter was willing to push back a bit. We've already covered the feds demand for info from Twitter concerning various folks associated with Wikileaks, but I wanted to do a separate post pointing out that it appears Twitter stood up and fought for its users' rights, when it could have easily just backed down. The details suggest that the court order was initially issued under seal on December 14th, giving Twitter just three days to hand over the info. Yet, last week, for unclear reasons, the magistrate judge allowed the seal to be removed, at which point Twitter reached out and notified the users, to see if they wanted to use the legal system to fight the demand for info (it appears most, if not all, are planning to do so). Lots of companies don't go nearly that far, so it's worth highlighting that Twitter appears to have gone above and beyond to protect its users' privacy. Of course, it also makes you wonder who else the feds issued similar orders to... and who just handed over the info.

Filed Under: privacy, wikileaks
Companies: twitter, wikileaks