US Gov't Funded Julian Assange's Crypto Research... Then Pulled The Plug

from the it-all-comes-back-around dept

PandoDaily has a fascinating story from Peiter Zatko who had known Julian Assange way back in the day, and last ran into him at Chaos Congress in 2009 (Wikileaks was going strong at this point, but it was well before the release of the "Collateral Murder" video, the accusations of rape, the Ecuadorian embassy asylum and all that). They caught up over dinner and Assange revealed to Zatko how the US government had funded and then shut down his research into a crypto-file system which would allow you to reveal a way to decrypt it that just showed innocuous files, so you could be "forced" to decrypt something without actually revealing anything. Of course, as we pointed out not that long ago, the NSA has a bit of a history of trying to stifle crypto research if it fears that the crypto might be too good, and it sounds like Assange was a victim of that, despite not being American nor working at an American university:

Julian told me his graduate work had been funded by a US government grant, specifically NSA and DARPA money, which was supposed to be used for fundamental security research. It was a time when the Bush Administration and Department of Defense were seen to be classifying a great deal of fundamental research and pulling back on university funds. These universities were getting the message that they could no longer work on the research they had been conducting, and what they had already done was classified. In a Joseph Heller-like twist, they weren’t even allowed to know what it was they had already discovered.

According to Julian, the US government cast such a wide net that even general scientific research, whose output had always been published openly, was swept up in America’s secrecy nets. As you can imagine this did not sit well with Julian, because his work had also been funded by one of these fundamental research funding lines and yanked.

Zatko notes that this experience is a big part of what drove Assange to dedicate his life to openness and helping to expose organizations that tried to keep the public ignorant of important things. While the crux of the article is that the US government inadvertently "created" Wikileaks, that seems like a bit of an exaggeration. However, it is somewhat interesting to know that Assange's work was, at one point, funded by the US government.

Filed Under: cryptography, funding, julian assange, secrecy
Companies: wikileaks

Government Argues Bradley Manning Was An Anarchist, As Case Closes

from the the-lies-your-government-spreads dept

We haven't been covering the day to day of the Bradley Manning trial, though it has been interesting (and frustrating) to follow. However, in its closing argument, it appears that the government is trying to smear Bradley Manning and his whistleblowing every possible way:

After more than four and a half hours of proceedings, the government wrapped up its closing argument in the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier being prosecuted for disclosing information to WikiLeaks. Prosecutors called him an “anarchist,” a “hacker,” and a “traitor” before the argument was over.

Really? All three claims are flat out ridiculous. From the very beginning Manning was quite clear in his motives, which were about making sure the American public was better informed. The bogus traitor claims have been mentioned before, and seem to have no basis in reality. But the anarchy one is a new one. As Kevin Gosztola explains:

Quoting chat logs between hacker and government informant Adrian Lamo and Manning, Major Ashden Fein said that he expected “worldwide anarchy” would occur after releasing the diplomatic cables and these were not the “words of a humanist but the words of an anarchist.” He also said he was a “hacker” and not a humanist.

Of course, if you read the actual chat logs and put the statement back in context you realize it's not the words of an anarchist at all. That's just some boasting about how releasing these files will have a major impact. But, as he immediately explains in the following statements, his goal is to create change and stop the US government from lying. He notes that releasing these documents "might actually change something" in how the US goes about its business. He's not talking about anarchy, he's talking about actually having a representative government that doesn't lie and deceive all the time.

Of course, the big claim that the government is trying to make is that Manning knowingly "aided the enemy":

For the “aiding the enemy” charge, which if convicted could lead to maximum sentence of life in prison, Fein argued that Manning had deliberately transmitted the “Collateral Murder” video, certain State Department information and military incident reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

But how is revealing factual information about the US military screwing up and then trying to cover it up "aiding the enemy." It seems like, once again, that's only true if "the enemy" is the American public and you have information you want to hide from them. In fact, the government appears to argue that any release of information to the public can be seen as "aiding the enemy"

“The public included the enemy and he knew that as an intelligence analyst,” the government stated. The government added that this was not public data. It was US government information that Manning was trained to use.

But, under that argument any journalist or any person who publishes anything that might make Al Qaeda happy is "aiding the enemy." That's crazy.

Manning's defense will give its closing argument on Friday, and then... we wait for the judge to decide.

Filed Under: anarchist, bradley manning, hacker, trial
Companies: wikileaks

Judge Refuses To Drop 'Aiding The Enemy' Charges Against Bradley Manning

from the whistleblowing-is-aiding-the-enemy dept

We noted recently that it has become official Obama administration policy that leaking governmental wrongdoing to the press is considered aiding the enemy. This is ridiculous on multiple levels, not the least of which is the suggestion that "the enemy" is the public, and that truthful information about government overreach and excess could somehow be counterproductive to the country's interests. Of course, that issue hadn't really been put to test in any sort of court until now, in the military trial of Bradley Manning. Tragically, the judge has announced that the "aiding the enemy" charge will not be dropped, despite the near total lack of evidence to support the idea that Manning knowingly released the documents to Wikileaks recognizing that it would "aid the enemy." It is still possible he could be found "not guilty" of aiding the enemy, but dismissing the overall charge would have sent a more powerful message.

Of course, the double standard you see when compared to how the military has treated its own when it comes to things like massacring innocent people is stark and disgusting:

Colonel Morris Davis, one of the key witnesses called by Manning's defence team in an attempt to have the "aiding the enemy" charge dropped, said he was "extraordinarily disappointed" by the ruling. Davis was director of the US air force's judicial system from 2007 to 2008 and said he was normally a defender of military justice.

But he said the fact that military prosecutors were pursuing Manning with such a heavy hand had forced him to think again. He pointed to the contrast between the full-blooded prosecution of the US soldier and the outcome of the court martial that flowed from the 2005 Haditha killings in Iraq.

In that incident, 24 unarmed Iraqis including women and children were killed by US marines. In the ensuing prosecutions, six of the marines involved had their cases dropped, a seventh was found not guilty and the only one to be convicted of a single count avoided any time in jail.

"When you think about these different responses, it suggests to me that the military justice system is not working," Davis said.

Notice that this wasn't being said by some civil libertarian, but the guy who had been in charge of the air force's judicial system just a few years ago. When even folks like Colonel Davis are recognizing what a farce the Manning trial is, it's pretty clear that the system is really, really broken.

The dangerous impact of this ruling cannot be overstated. As we've noted, the main "evidence" against Manning on this particular charge is the claim that Al Qaida, and bin Laden in particular, were found to have some of the Wikileaks documents. But that's not evidence of "aiding the enemy" and if it is, it means that famed reporters like Bob Woodward and his White House sources are equally at risk for having "aided the enemy," since Woodward's books have revealed much more sensitive information, and bin Laden was also found to have not only read Woodward's book, but recommended the book to others.

Meanwhile, as Harvard law profess Yochai Benkler has written (and also testified during the trial), a finding that leaking such information to the public is a form of "aiding the enemy" creates a massive threat to the concept of a free and independent press. The chilling effects are massive.

Freedom of the press is anchored in our constitution because it reflects our fundamental belief that no institution can be its own watchdog. The government is full of well-intentioned and quite powerful inspectors general and similar internal accountability mechanisms. But like all big organizations, the national security branches of government include some people who aren't purely selfless public servants. Secrecy is necessary and justified in many cases. But as hard-earned experience has shown us time and again, it can be—and often is—used to cover up failure, avarice, or actions that simply will not survive that best of disinfectants, sunlight.

That’s where whistleblowers come in. They offer a pressure valve, constrained by the personal risk whistleblowers take, and fueled by whatever moral courage they can muster. Manning's statement in court yesterday showed that, at least in his motives, he was part of that long-respected tradition. But that’s also where the Manning prosecution comes in, too. The prosecution case seems designed, quite simply, to terrorize future national security whistleblowers. The charges against Manning are different from those that have been brought against other whistleblowers. “Aiding the enemy” is punishable by death. And although the prosecutors in this case are not seeking the death penalty against Manning, the precedent they are seeking to establish does not depend on the penalty. It establishes the act as a capital offense, regardless of whether prosecutors in their discretion decide to seek the death penalty in any particular case.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation goes deeper in explaining how merely asking basic important questions can have you accused of "aiding the enemy" under the definitions used by the court.

The implications of the government’s argument are breathtaking. To understand why, it helps to recall the experience of another soldier. In December of 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a town-hall style meeting for troops who were preparing to deploy to Iraq. Following his remarks, Rumsfeld was confronted by an Army specialist who complained about the inadequacy of the combat equipment provided by the military.

“Our vehicles are not armored,” said Specialist Thomas Wilson, an airplane mechanic with the Tennessee Army National Guard. “We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up . . . to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper vehicles to carry with us north.”

The soldier’s question — and Rumsfeld’s now infamous response that “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have” — were front-page news around the world. And while war cheerleaders like Rush Limbaugh accused Specialist Wilson of “near insubordination” for embarrassing the defense secretary in a public forum, there was no suggestion in serious quarters that he face punishment — much less prosecution — for his words.

Yet the government’s decision to prosecute Manning for “Aiding the Enemy” threatens to make public comments like Wilson’s grounds for criminal prosecution. The government does not contend that Manning gave any information to Al Qaeda, or even that he intended that Al Qaeda receive it. Rather, it claims that Manning “indirectly” aided Al Qaeda by causing intelligence information to be posted on WikiLeaks’ website, knowing that Al Qaeda has access to the internet. Specifically, the government contends that Manning violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which provides that “any person who . . . gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

They go on to note that in merely asking that question (and, in fact, Rumsfeld in answering it) "spoke openly about the vulnerability of U.S. forces in Iraq." And, under the definitions used against Manning, claiming he was "aiding the enemy" the same would apply to both Wilson and Rumsfeld as well:

Both men surely knew that the enemy would watch their exchange on television or read about it on the internet. The notion that Wilson and Rumsfeld broke the law by communicating this information to the media and thereby “indirectly” aiding the enemy is absurd — but no more so than the government’s contention that Bradley Manning did so.

Today's failure to dismiss that claim against Manning is a travesty of justice in so many ways, but more importantly, it makes it clear to future whistleblowers that the cost of blowing the whistle on gross government negligence is much, much higher. That's a very unfortunate situation for a country who at least used to pretend that it was important to keep its government in check.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bob woodward, bradley manning, chilling effects, denise lind, free speech, journalism, whistleblowing, yochai benkler
Companies: wikileaks

Washington Post Makes Bizarre, Factually Incorrect Claims About Glenn Greenwald, Can't Figure Out How To Update

from the keep-working-at-it.. dept

The Washington Post's institutional jealousy towards the Guardian and its role in the Ed Snowden leaks continues to be quite bizarre. At the same time that some of the Post's reporters are doing excellent work on the story, including breaking a few of the stories themselves, the old timers seem to be reflexively attacking the Guardian for doing the same thing -- and, at the same time, attacking Snowden himself for being a source. The latest example is Walter Pincus, the octogenarian and long-term Washington Post "national security" reporter, who wrote a bizarre column "asking questions" of Ed Snowden, and by association, of Glenn Greenwald, filmmaker Laura Poitras (who has assisted both the Guardian and the Washington Post with the Snowden story) and Julian Assange. Pincus makes a bunch of "connections" that he finds concerning about the Snowden ordeal, suggesting strongly that the whole thing was somehow orchestrated in secret by Julian Assange.

The only problem with this is that a very large number of the factual claims made by Pincus are complete bunk. Not only that, but they're such complete bunk that even a basic fact check would have told you they were complete bunk. It's a perfectly legitimate journalistic practice to ask questions based on information presented -- but when those questions are based on complete falsehoods, it makes you wonder. Much of Pincus' piece is based on the incorrect claim that Greenwald has a close connection with Assange and Wikileaks, stating, falsely, that Greenwald "wrote for the WikiLeaks Press's blog about Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. government officials." That's completely untrue. Greenwald wrote his piece for Salon not for Wikileaks, and has never written for Wikileaks in any manner.

Greenwald confronted Pincus about this and other inaccuracies in the piece, leading Pincus to grudgingly admit that it was a mistake, but saying his confusion was because the Salon piece "was carried on the Wikileaks Press page without attribution to Salon as the originating venue." Except, that's not true. The blog clearly carries just an excerpt with a link to the full piece at the end. Still, Pincus promised that a correction would be coming but, despite being aware of the mistakes for at least a day, the Washington Post (at the time I'm writing this) still has not posted a correction. Pincus told the Washington Post's Erik Wemple (who has been doing good work on the story, and who rightly scolds Pincus for his actions) that a correction "is in the works." Not sure why it should take so long, through.

Of course, there are a number of other pretty big factual errors by Pincus, which he has refused to acknowledge. For example, the claim that Julian Assange "previewed" the first Snowden leak a week before Greenwald published it in the Guardian. However, as anyone following these issues knows, Assange was talking about a completely different NSA surveillance program (Stellar Wind), which had been leaked many years ago and was shut down a few years back. Instead of admitting this error, Pincus is doubling down, telling Wemple that perhaps his point was "badly phrased," but Assange and Greenwald were talking about the "same program."

Except, they're not. They are both NSA surveillance programs, but Stellar Wind was revealed years ago. The Greenwald revelations were much more detailed and were about very different programs, many of which came after Stellar Wind. Considering that Pincus is supposed to be the Washington Post's "national security" expert, you'd think he'd recognize that. Instead, he tells Wemple that the complaints are "argumentative." Pincus also, falsely, suggested that Snowden only worked at the NSA for 3 months, ignoring -- as has been widely reported -- that Snowden worked at the NSA as a contractor for four years. He merely switched which firm he was contracting for (from Dell to Booz Allen).

Again, asking questions is a perfectly reasonable activity. But those questions should be based on facts. And... when those facts are shown to be wrong, you issue a correction. And, once you've admitted you're flat out wrong, and say that you'll fix it, it shouldn't take over 24 hours to do so....

Filed Under: ed snowden, erik wemple, glenn greenwald, laura poitras, walter pincus
Companies: the guardian, washington post, wikileaks

Visa And Mastercard Ban Anonymizing VPNs... Just As They Allow Wikileaks

from the arbitrary dept

This is random. Just as Mastercard and Visa are allowing payments to Wikileaks again after a two year hiatus, those same two companies have started banning VPN providers. If you don't recall, the credit card companies refused to process payments for Wikileaks, following significant pressure from US officials, even as they have no problem processing payments to hate groups like the KKK. After a long legal dispute, an Icelandic court ordered the credit card companies to start processing payments to Wikileaks again.

Given all of that, it's quite bizarre that they're now cutting off various VPN/anonymizing services, as it should be quite obvious that there are tremendous perfectly legal and reasonable uses of such services. Personally, I have two VPN services, which I use when I travel, or am working from outside the office to make sure my data is encrypted and safe. It's really just good computing hygiene to use such a service. However, apparently, Mastercard and Visa would like everyone's data to be exposed.

It now turns out that these policies have carried over to VPN providers and other anonymizing services. Before the weekend customers of the popular Swedish payment service provider Payson received an email stating that VPN services are no longer allowed to accept Visa and Mastercard payments due to a recent policy change.

"Payson has restrictions against anonymization (including VPN services). As a result Payson can unfortunately no longer give your customers the option to finance payments via their cards (VISA or MasterCard)," the email states, adding that they still accept bank transfers as deposits.

The new policy went into effect on Monday, leaving customers with a two-day window to find a solution.

At least one of the VPNs so impacted, iPredator, is apparently looking at its legal options. Given Wikileaks' victory on a nearly identical issue, you'd think that the credit card companies would know better -- but perhaps they think that the VPN providers won't bother with a costly legal battle.

Filed Under: anonymity, encryption, payment processing, payments, vpns
Companies: ipredator, mastercard, visa, wikileaks

FBI Paid Off Wikileaks Insider To Be An Informant: Imagine If It Was The NY Times

from the that's-insane dept

People like to debate whether or not Wikileaks is or is not a "media property," but I can't see any definition of a media property under which Wikileaks would not fall. Yes, it publishes leaked documents, but so do many other media properties. Yes, it has a strong ideological viewpoint, but so do many other media properties. So it's rather stunning to read about the fact that a Wikileaks insider apparently spent some time as a paid informant for the FBI, handing over a variety of internet information on things happening within Wikileaks. Imagine if this was the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal, and it came out that an employee was getting paid by the FBI to reveal what those newspapers were working on. People would be up in arms, just like they were over the DOJ's spying on AP reporters and a Fox News reporter. Except, this wasn't just spying on a reporter, this was flat out paying off an insider to share internal information. That's incredible.

The entire story from Kevin Poulsen at Wired is worth reading, about how Icelandic teen Sigurdur Thordarson was taken under Julian Assange's wing and given a fair amount of autonomy within Wikileaks. The details suggest that Thordarson abused that position in many ways, including setting up a t-shirt sales site, supposedly to benefit Wikileaks, but where all the money went directly to his own bank account. But, that's really minor considering the key point: that the FBI actively worked with and continued to push Thordarson to get more info from Wikileaks, even after he'd left the organization. The DOJ is supposed to have rules about investigations of media properties for a variety of reasons, and paying off an insider seems like it goes way, way beyond what's appropriate.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, informant, journalism, julian assange, media, paid informant, sigurdur thordarson, surveillance, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Adrian Lamo On The Stand: 'Did Manning Ever Say He Wanted To Help The Enemy?' 'Not In Those Words, No.'

from the 20-years-for-attempting-to-upset-the-status-quo dept

Bradley Manning is currently on trial, charged with "aiding an enemy" (including "classified" enemies) for turning over sensitive documents to Wikileaks. As Mike pointed out earlier, this latter charge doesn't add up. Manning never handed over anything directly to any enemies of America, classified or otherwise, and any documents these unnamed enemies had in their possession were already publicly available.

Adrian Lamo, the ex-hacker who turned Manning over to the feds (or rather, the Dept. of Defense with some assistance from the FBI), was on the stand on June 4th. Under cross examination by David Coombs of Manning's defense team, Lamo is unable to say Manning intended to "aid the enemy" by releasing these documents. In fact, Coombs exchange with Lamo depicts Manning as someone with idealistic aims who hoped that bringing governmental and military wrongdoing into the light would help change both entities for the better.

Q. At one point you asked him what his end game was, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And he told you, hopefully worldwide discussions, debates and reforms?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he said he wanted people to see the truth?
A. Correct.
Q. He said without information you can't make informed decision as a whole?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he told you to, he was hoping that people would actually change if they saw the information?
A. Correct.

At one point, the discussion turned to the possibility of aiding US enemies, but Manning still refused to view the information he had acquired as anything other than a contribution to public knowledge.

Q. And at one point you asked him why he didn't just sell the information to Russia or China?
A. Correct.
Q. And he told you that the information belonged in the public domain?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. He believed that information was in the public domain and should be for the public good?
A. Yes.

And when the questions became more direct, Lamo's answers became correspondingly vague.

Q. At anytime did he say he had no loyalty to America?
A. Not in those words, no.
Q. At anytime did he say the American flag didn't mean anything to him?
A. No.
Q. At anytime did he say he wanted to help the enemy?
A. Not in those words, no.

In what words, then? The transcripts of the chats between Lamo and Manning are public. There's no indication Manning wished to aid the enemy. There was the potential for harm to exposed operatives and sources, but that was greatly mitigated by the delay between delivery and publication of the documents, not to mention Lamo bringing this to the FBI's attention after the initial chat session. But the military has chosen to view the embarrassment and inconvenience caused by the documents' release as "aiding the enemy" -- whatever hurts us makes them stronger.

Filed Under: adrian lamo, bradley manning, enemy of the state, trial
Companies: wikileaks

Constitutional Scholar Who Taught Obama Comes Out Against Bradley Manning Trial

from the as-he-should dept

As the Bradley Manning trial officially kicks off today, it's interesting to see famed Constitutional scholar and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe speak out against the case. As The Guardian notes, Tribe taught Constitutional Law to President Obama when he was in law school.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who is considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law in the US and who taught the subject to President Barack Obama, told the Guardian that the charge could set a worrying precedent. He said: "Charging any individual with the extremely grave offense of 'aiding the enemy' on the basis of nothing beyond the fact that the individual posted leaked information on the web and thereby 'knowingly gave intelligence information' to whoever could gain access to it there, does indeed seem to break dangerous new ground."

Tribe, who advised the department of justice in Obama's first term, added that the trial could have "far-reaching consequences for chilling freedom of speech and rendering the internet a hazardous environment, well beyond any demonstrable national security interest."

I know that some people have pre-convicted Manning, but the charges here are simply crazy. He's already pled guilty to certain charges, but this trial focuses on whether or not he was "aiding the enemy," which would require to show that he did this knowing that it would help Al-Qaida and [classified enemy]. The supposed "proof" of this is going to be the fact that Osama bin Laden apparently had Wikileaks documents in his compound in Pakistan. But that's ridiculous. Under that theory, anyone reporting information that terrorists found useful would be guilty of violating the Espionage Act and could face the death penalty. As others in the article note, this would create a tremendous chill on investigative reporting.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, al qaida, bradley manning, laurance tribe, military, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Bradley Manning Accused Of Aiding [Classified Enemy]

from the even-our-enemies-are-secret? dept

Okay, so in Orwell's 1984, the powers that be may have switched who the "enemy" was arbitrarily and then rewritten history to argue we were always at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. But, at least there was a defined enemy. In the court martial case against Bradley Manning, for supposedly "aiding the enemy" by releasing State Department cables and other documents to Wikileaks, he's being charged with aiding a "classified enemy" along with aiding Al-Qaida. We've already explained why the aiding the enemy charge is highly dubious, since that charge is normally reserved for directly handing information to an enemy, not leaking it to the press. But the fact that one of "the enemies" is secret is completely messed up, and has legal scholars scratching their heads as well.

Three professors of military law - Yale Law School's Eugene Fidell, Duke University School of Law's Scott Silliman and Texas Tech University School of Law's Richard Rosen - told Courthouse News they had never heard of a case involving a "classified enemy."

When Courthouse News asked the military to explain how there could be a "classified enemy," they were told the enemy is not actually classified, but it's classified that this "known" but unnamed enemy had "classified info" that Manning is accused of leaking. Have fun deciphering this one:

"What 'is' classified is that our government has confirmed that this enemy is in receipt of certain compromised classified information, and that the means and methods of collection that the government has employed to make that determination are classified," the spokeswoman said in an email.

But, that makes no sense. After all, the documents were released publicly. Everyone could have had them. Naming the enemy here wouldn't compromise how the government "confirmed" that the enemy had the classified info. The whole case, once again, seems to resolve around some highly questionable assertions to try to make this into an "aiding the enemy" case, when it's clearly nothing of the sort.

Filed Under: aiding the enemy, bradley manning, classified, espionage act, national security
Companies: wikileaks

Iceland's Supreme Court Upholds Wikileaks Ruling, Orders Visa To Process Donations Again

from the iceland-becomes-an-enemy-combatant? dept

You may recall that after US politicians pressured Visa and Mastercard to stop processing donations to Wikileaks, Wikileaks sued in Iceland. Last year, an Icelandic court ordered Visa to start processing donations to Wikileaks again, but Visa appealed. Now, the Icelandic Supreme Court has upheld the original ruling and once again told Valitor (Visa Iceland) to begin processing those donations again. As Wikileaks points out, if it refuses to do so, it will have to pay fines around $200,000 per month. Your move, Visa. Of course, if Visa does start processing donations, how long until diplomatic pressure from the US on Iceland leads to Iceland backing down?

Filed Under: iceland
Companies: wikileaks