Swiss Bank Finds Technicality To Freeze Wikileaks Bank Account

from the new-interest-in-terms-of-service dept

Following Paypal's decision to cut off Wikileaks' account, claiming a heretofore unnoticed "terms of service violation," it appears that the Swiss bank account Julian Assange set up to take donations has been frozen for similarly dubious reasons. They apparently "just noticed" that Assange falsely claimed that Geneva was his place of residence. Since that is not the case (should he have just written "on the run"?), the Swiss Post has decided to freeze the account. It's amazing how all of a sudden all of these companies have found weird "terms of service" violations to use as a reason to cut off Wikileaks. This is another reason why terms of service are generally a joke (and why it's crazy to suggest that violating terms of service should be a criminal offense). You can almost always find something that violates those terms of service. Of course, one company that appears to not be backing down (not surprisingly) is Flattr, who is noting that you can still Flattr Wikileaks (you can Flattr us here at Techdirt too, if you'd like -- just look next to each post) and mentioning that one of the very reasons they created Flattr was to avoid censorship.

Filed Under: bank account, wikileaks
Companies: swiss post, wikileaks

PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks

from the political-pressure dept

Over the weekend, Paypal became the latest company to cut off Wikileaks' account, saying that it was a "terms of service" violation -- the same excuse Amazon gave. Of course, Wikileaks had been using Paypal for quite some time before this, so it seems pretty clear that the reasoning was (yet again) political pressure put on American companies, threatening them for working with Wikileaks. What's funny about all of this, of course, is that it's only going to serve to give Wikileaks more attention, and drive up demand for competing services to these US companies overseas. In an effort to "stop" access to information that is widely accessible, all the US is really doing is (a) promoting that information more while (b) harming the reputation of American companies.

Filed Under: terms of service, wikileaks
Companies: paypal, wikileaks

How Denial Works: Library Of Congress Blocks Wikileaks

from the head-in-the-sand dept

So the latest in the US government sticking its head in the sand over Wikileaks is that the Library of Congress has blocked access to the Wikileaks site, claiming:

The Library decided to block Wikileaks because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents' classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.

I don't know how to put this any more diplomatically, so I'll just say it straight up: this is stupid. This is pure denialism. We've seen it before, such as in the Al-Haramain case, where the government accidentally leaked evidence of warrantless wiretapping, and the information was widely available... but everyone involved in the case had to pretend it wasn't available. It's stupid.

And that's what's going on here. Rather than admitting that the content released by Wikileaks is available all over the damn internet while also being widely reported on in the press and elsewhere, the Library of Congress pretends that blocking access to Wikileaks actually does something. It does not. It just makes the Library of Congress appear to be in denial. If the Library of Congress was actually serious about blocking access to classified information, it would also need to block all of the torrents that contain the cables, the scores of media outlets reporting on this and highlighting the documents and the thousands of other places that are also offering up the documents. But that's (of course) impossible. Which is kind of the point. Why make such a symbolically silly move and claim that it's because you're "obligated" to block such content. How hard is it to admit the reality of the situation, rather than pretending it's something different? I don't know about you, but I would prefer that my government responded to the reality of what's going on, rather than pretending it wasn't going on at all.

Filed Under: denial, library of congress, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Some Sanity From Those In Power In The US Government, Concerning TSA Security & Wikileaks

from the they're-not-all-crazy! dept

While we've been highlighting the absolutely ridiculous responses by the US government to both the terrorism threat to airlines and the Wikileaks situation, it should be noted (thankfully!) that not everyone in the US government is overreacting, and there are some clear signs of sanity.

First up, we have Aaron Farnham pointing us to Defense Secretary Robert Gates' response to the Wikileaks disclosure of diplomatic cables, that seems to take a much more rational view:

But let me -- let me just offer some perspective as somebody who's been at this a long time. Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve, and it has for a long time. And I dragged this up the other day when I was looking at some of these prospective releases. And this is a quote from John Adams: "How can a government go on, publishing all of their negotiations with foreign nations, I know not. To me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel." . . .

Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets.

Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

The full statement has even more details, where he talks about better information sharing. Given some of the responses from others inside and outside the government, it's nice to see someone like Secretary Gates (who has been quite critical of Wikileaks in the past), come out with a more reasoned response (though it has received almost no press coverage).

Similarly, Wired has an article highlighting how Michael Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, is speaking more reasonably about anti-terrorism efforts and security as well, noting (as we have in the past) that "perfect security" is an impossible goal that is, itself, damaging to security.

He points out that the US appears to be playing right into Al Qaeda's hands by playing up each failed terrorist attempt and then overreacting to it, noting that (like internet trolls), a better response might be to just ignore them publicly, while continuing to do things quietly on the back end to protect the country.

I don't agree with everything he had to say, but given how many frustrating responses we've seen from government officials on both of these issues over the last few weeks, it's worth pointing out that not everyone is responding that way.

Filed Under: government, michael leiter, reaction, robert gates, terrorism, tsa, wikileaks
Companies: tsa, wikileaks

French Hosting Company Asks Judge If It's Okay To Host Wikileaks

from the better-than-just-taking-them-down... dept

It seems like, as in the US with Senator Lieberman's desire for censorship, a French politician has also been looking to censor Wikileaks, which has been partially hosted by French firm OVH. However, rather than just folding, PrometheeFeu alerts us to the news that OVH notes that their job is to run infrastructure and they have no feelings one way or another about Wikileaks itself. However, due to all of the publicity and controversy, they're asking a judge if it's okay for them to do what they're doing (Google translation of the original French). They specifically state that they don't think it should be up to politicians (or the company itself) to decide but that a court of law should actually determine if it's legal. That certainly seems like a better solution than just taking it down...

Filed Under: censorship, france, hosting, wikileaks
Companies: ovh

Russian Press And Pakistani Courts Apparently Have More Respect For Free Speech Than Joe Lieberman

from the time-to-resign,-joe dept

We've already discussed how the US is, quite clearly, trying to censor various information despite its claims of being anti-censorship and it's efforts to pressure foreign countries to stop censorship of things like the internet. Yet here are two interesting stories, concerning the Wikileaks situation, suggesting that two countries, which are not exactly known for being bastions of free speech, appear to be a lot more open to it than certain US politicians.

The first, via Glyn Moody is a long and interesting opinion piece in Pravda, of all places, pointing out the hypocrisy of the US government's response to Wikileaks and comparing it to the government's response to the release of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. It also runs through a nice history of the US's back-and-forth battle with free speech issues, such as with the Alien & Sedition Acts and the McCarthy era. It also highlights how the Wikileaks' release shows evidence of the US government covering up all sorts of politically motivated acts. The conclusion is dead on:

It is the American people who should be outraged that its government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.

It's pretty sad when Pravda is lecturing the US on free speech, tolerance and respect for human rights.

Then we move over to Pakistan, where the country's High Court has dismissed an attempt to get Wikileaks banned from that country. Someone had petitioned the court, saying that the latest leaks could "create a rift among Pakistan" and other countries. However, the court dismissed it with the judge saying: "We must bear the truth, no matter how harmful it is."

And yet, here in the US, we have Senator Joe Lieberman running around trying to shove truth back into the hole he in which wishes it were buried. A very sad statement on the state of US respect for free speech.

Filed Under: free speech, joe lieberman, pakistan, pravda, russia, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

State Department Telling Students Who Apply For Jobs That If They Mention Wikileaks On Twitter, They Won't Be Hired

from the head-in-sand dept

It appears that the State Department really wants to put its head in the sand when it comes to the whole Wikileaks' release of diplomatic cables. Mathew Ingram points us to the news that a career services person at Columbia University apparently sent around an email, purportedly concerning a conversation they'd had with an alumnus at the State Department warning students who wanted to work in the State Department to ignore Wikileaks. Specifically, it said that, as part of the background check on you, the State Department would review your social networking accounts, like Twitter and Facebook, and if they saw you had talked about Wikileaks, they might think you couldn't handle confidential information:

From: "Office of Career Services"

Date: November 30, 2010 15:26:53 EST

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Regards,
Office of Career Services

Assuming this is accurate (and it may prove not to be...), it's difficult to think of a much more ridiculous response. Talking about what's going on with Wikileaks is hardly an indication of how one deals with confidential information, because that information is no longer confidential. Pretending that you shouldn't even discuss a rather important and topical story of interest to those who actually do care about diplomacy and public policy, isn't just a "put your head in the sand" approach, it's actively discouraging the folks who might have the most insight and interest into these subjects from getting a job where they might be of assistance.

Filed Under: hiring, social networks, state department, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

The Inevitability Of Wikileaks

from the if-you-strike-me-down... dept

Yet another excellent post over at the Economist highlighting the key mistake that those arguing against Wikileaks seem to be making: it's the idea that these kinds of things can be stopped. It's this idea that if Julian Assange is killed or if Wikileaks loses its domain or even if people are brought to trial over this, that somehow, somewhere, such data leaks won't happen any more. As the Economist notes:

Jailing Thomas Edison in 1890 would not have darkened the night.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make a couple months ago, in pointing out the impossibility of stopping truly distributed systems through conventional means (whether the distributed systems are doing good or bad things), and how little the people in power recognize this.

Yet the debate over WikiLeaks has proceeded as if the matter might conclude with the eradication of these kinds of data dumps--as if this is a temporary glitch in the system that can be fixed; as if this is a nuisance that can be made to go away with the application of sufficient government gusto. But I don't think the matter can end this way. Just as technology has made it easier for governments and corporations to snoop ever more invasively into the private lives of individuals, it has also made it easier for individuals, working alone or together, to root through and make off with the secret files of governments and corporations. WikiLeaks is simply an early manifestation of what I predict will be a more-or-less permanent feature of contemporary life, and a more-or-less permanent constraint on strategies of secret-keeping.

This is about dealing with reality, but so many of those in charge are working from the wrong playbook -- the one that doesn't realize that this is the new reality.

The basic question is not whether we think Julian Assange is a terrorist or a hero. The basic question certainly is not whether we think exposing the chatter of the diplomatic corps helps or hinders their efforts, and whether this is a good or bad thing. To continue to focus on these questions is to miss the forest for the texture of the bark on a single elm. If we take the inevitability of future large leaks for granted, then I think the debate must eventually centre on the things that will determine the supply of leakers and leaks. Some of us wish to encourage in individuals the sense of justice which would embolden them to challenge the institutions that control our fate by bringing their secrets to light. Some of us wish to encourage in individuals ever greater fealty and submission to corporations and the state in order to protect the privileges and prerogatives of the powerful, lest their erosion threaten what David Brooks calls "the fragile community"--our current, comfortable dispensation.

Again, this is why I have pointed out the similarities between the whole Wikileaks situation and the entertainment industry's response to file sharing. In the latter, it was never about whether or not file sharing was good or bad, moral or immoral, or even (really) whether or not it helps or hinders the creative lives of certain individuals or companies. What happened with file sharing was an inevitability, and the focus from the beginning should have been about figuring out "what do we do now, knowing this reality."

For years, I've said that one of the reasons I focused so much on the music industry was that I hoped other arenas that faced similar questions would learn from the mistakes of that one industry. And, yet, we see time and time again that this almost never happens. We've seen the movie industry, the software industry, the video game industry, the publishing industry and more follow the same path making the same mistakes. And now we're seeing the US government do it too -- and this is a case where the stakes may be much, much bigger.

Filed Under: technology, trends, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship

from the we-censor-too dept

We've pointed out in the past the rather bizarre dichotomy of US politicians (including the President) speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, while at the very same time supporting policies that censor websites in the US. Of course, the US censorship isn't about political speech, but about copyright issues. However, that doesn't make it any less censorship. In an excellent blog post by law professor Derek Bambauer, he makes this point after highlighting the numerous concerns over Homeland Security's domain name seizures:

The U.S. government is grabbing domain names to prevent users from reaching content it views as illegal. Not content that has been adjudicated illegal, as far as we know -- content that is alleged to be illegal. To content owners, and probably to ICE, it looks only natural that we’d prevent people from reaching information they view as stolen, or counterfeit. But it’s natural to China to censor human rights sites. Or Wikileaks, for that matter....

Every country in the world believes that some material on the Net qualifies inherently for censorship. It's obvious! In this respect, we're no different from China. So, we should give up pretensions of American exceptionalism for information controls -- for us, it's IP; for Saudi Arabia, it's porn; for France, it's hate speech. Only the quality of the legal process differentiates censors. And with these seizures, I think there's much to worry us in the (lack of) process...

This nicely summarizes the point that I've tried to make. When people claim that taking down entire websites (even ones that have plenty of legitimate content) through the US government seizing it isn't censorship because "it's copyright infringement," it sounds like the stories you hear from people in China who see absolutely nothing wrong with the Great Firewall there, noting that the government is just protecting them from "dangerous information." Both cases are about censorship, however. Same with France and Saudi Arabia. They're all situations where the government has decided that certain types of content should be blocked because it is -- in some way -- harmful. And those who agree that it is harmful say it's not censorship because it's "helpful." But that's simply not true. It's censorship, plain and simple.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, internet, wikileaks

Wikileaks Says Its Site Has Been 'Killed'

from the yeah-that'll-help dept

This is definitely a "developing" story, but apparently the entire Wikileaks.org site has gone down again and the Wikileaks folks are claiming that the domain was "killed by US everydns.net after claimed mass attacks." That's a bit cryptic and Wikileaks has not been above jumping to conclusions at times. It's unclear, for example, if it was just the company EveryDNS who did something on their own, or if the US government was involved. It could be as simple as the sort of pressure Senator Lieberman is applying on US companies. Update: The EveryDNS website says they made the decision because the DDoS attacks on Wikileaks violated their terms of service in that it could interfere with other websites. I understand the fear that it could cause problems with other websites, but it seems weird to say that getting attacked by a DDoS violates your terms of service. It's something totally out of the control of the website.

Either way, it is a bit silly to think that taking down Wikileaks' website would actually do anything in this situation. The data that they're releasing is out there and plenty of people can easily find it. It won't take long for them to set up another website if they want to -- and while it may be a bit harder for people to find them, to date, the organization hasn't exactly had any problems getting everyone else to promote what they release for them. Whatever the reason is for taking the domain name offline, it's difficult to think it would be effective in stopping Wikileaks in any way. If anything, it just calls that much more attention to the organization.

Filed Under: domain, wikileaks
Companies: everydns, wikileaks