Firm Involved In Planning Attack On Journalist Glenn Greenwald To Hurt Wikileaks Apologizes; Cuts Ties With HBGary Federal

from the fallout dept

Yesterday we had the news of how HBGary Federal -- the firm whose CEO claimed he had "infiltrated" the non-group's leadership and identified who ran the non-group (which doesn't actually have "leaders" in the traditional sense) -- had been exposed for planning a propaganda attack on Wikileaks at the request of some lawyers working with Bank of America (and, it turns out, recommended by the Justice Department). Part of the strategy was to somehow put a tremendous amount of pressure on Salon writer Glenn Greenwald to stop his support of Wikileaks. Exactly how that was to work was not entirely explained.

However, the Tech Herald, which broke the original story, has now spoken with the CEO of Palantir Technologies, one of the two other companies that HBGary Federal had teamed up with in this proposal. Dr. Alex Karp, who is both the co-founder and CEO of Palantir, seems to be genuinely sorry about the whole ordeal, saying he told his firm to cut all ties with HBGary Federal, and issuing an apology to Greenwald.

"The right to free speech and the right to privacy are critical to a flourishing democracy. From its inception, Palantir Technologies has supported these ideals and demonstrated a commitment to building software that protects privacy and civil liberties. Furthermore, personally and on behalf of the entire company, I want to publicly apologize to progressive organizations in general, and Mr. Greenwald in particular, for any involvement that we may have had in these matters."

Meanwhile, HBGary Federal apparently remains pretty quiet...

Filed Under: apologies, glenn greenwald, wikileaks
Companies: hbgary federal, palantir technologies, wikileaks

Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald

from the this-is-like-out-of-a-bad-movie dept

Sometimes reality can be more entertaining than fiction. You may have followed the recent story involving a security firm called HBGary Federal, in which the company's CEO, Aaron Barr, told the Financial Times this weekend that he had secretly "infiltrated" the non-group Anonymous and identified its leadership... and that he was planning to hand over the info to law enforcement. Of course, it was pretty questionable how accurate the information is, considering Anonymous isn't actually a "group" with a hierarchy at all. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that there were some folks who were heavily active, but that's different than claiming there's "leadership." Either way, Anonymous did what Anonymous does when someone does something it doesn't like: they hacked. Beyond taking over Barr's Twitter account and revealing all sorts of private info and taking over various web servers connected to HBGary Federal, it also released 44,000 of the company's emails.

Once again, as I've said before, I really don't think this is a good idea. The potential backlash can be severe and these kinds of attacks can create the opposite long-term incentives that the folks involved think they're creating. It also gets people a lot more focused on the method rather than the message and that seems unfortunate.

Still, the leaked emails are turning up some gems, with a key one being that Bank of America (widely discussed as Wikileaks' next target) had apparently been talking to HBGary Federal about how to disrupt Wikileaks. That link, from The Tech Herald, includes tons of details. The full proposal (embedded below) feels like something straight out of a (really, really bad) Hollywood script.

It appears that the law firm BofA was using as a part of its Wikileaks crisis response task force, Hunton and Williams, had reached out to firms asking for research and a plan against Wikileaks. HBGary Federal, along with Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies put together their pitch. According to the emails discussing this, the firms tried to come up with a plan as to how they could somehow disrupt Wikileaks , see if there was a way to sue Wikileaks and get an injunction against releasing the data.

There are two key slides in the presentation. The first is a totally bizarre plan of attack on Salon journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been an outspoken supporter of Wikileaks. However, these three companies seem to think that they can pressure him to give up supporting Wikileaks in this case and that will somehow solve a big part of the issue. According to the Tech Herald, the word "disrupted" in the final presentation was actually written as "attacked" in earlier drafts of the presentation. This suggests some pretty confused thinking on the part of these firms. The idea that Wikileaks would "fold" without people like Glenn supporting them seems pretty silly, as does the idea that Glenn would suddenly give up the cause. Still, it's pretty freaking ominous for the firm to seriously be suggesting that it can somehow put pressure on Greenwald that would lead him to "choose professional preservation over cause." It makes you wonder just what level of underhanded tricks they were thinking about pulling.

Later on in the presentation is the plan to further disrupt Wikileaks, which is basically to create a propaganda campaign around the organization -- as if the press wasn't doing that already. They also have the idea to upload bogus info to Wikileaks, hope the bogus info gets released and then discredit Wikileaks by showing that it publishes bogus info. Who knows? Perhaps this very presentation is faked and is all a part of HBGary's nefarious plan (since the document is available via Wikileaks...). Either way, the whole thing reeks of the types of organizations that think they're fighting a single, centralized foe, rather than a distributed movement that is interested in transparency. All of these attacks -- even if successful -- wouldn't do much harm to the overall efforts to increase transparency. Even if they succeeded in quieting Greenwald, others would continue to report on this. Even if they discredited Wikileaks itself (and many have tried), others have been springing up nearly every day to take its place.

It's not known whether or not BofA actually agreed to this proposal (or ever actually knew about it), though apparently HBGary Federal employees were hopeful they'd get the deal to provide these services. If so, going on to blab in the press about infiltrating Anonymous probably wasn't the best way of keeping out of the spotlight on these issues...

Filed Under: anonymous, attacks, glenn greenwald, leaks, wikileaks
Companies: bank of america, berico, hbgary federal, hunton and williams, palantir, wikileaks

EFF, ACLU Fighting Gov't Attempt To Troll Twitter Accounts For Wikileaks Info

from the fed-trolling dept

At the beginning of January, thanks to Twitter pushing back against a gag order and request from the feds to hand over info of people connected to Wikileaks, it came out publicly that the government was seeking such info. Of course, the government almost certainly sent similar requests to a bunch of other companies that simply rolled over. However, thanks to Twitter's willingness to stand up to the government, it's allowed the folks whose info was sought to fight back, though the initial steps in that fighting back were apparently gagged as well.

Thankfully, part of the gag has been lifted, and we now know that the EFF and the ACLU are challenging the info request and are seeking to have more documents in the case unsealed as well, including the Justice Department's original application for the order -- which should explain the reason for requesting the info. Who knows if the court will grant this, but once again, none of this would even be open for discussion if Twitter had just rolled over and handed the feds the info they demanded.

Filed Under: info, privacy, wikileaks
Companies: aclu, eff, twitter, wikileaks

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.

Filed Under: egypt, free speech, internet freedom, julian assange, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

The Distributed Party Of 'We' Is Already In Control

from the this-ain't-no-tea-party dept

I tend not to be much of a believer in political "parties." They always seem to get lost in groupthink around what's best for "the party," rather than what's best, period. I even tend to have issues with groups like The Pirate Party. While I support many of the ideals and concepts within the party's platform, I don't agree with everything they have to say, and still think the use of "pirate" in the name, while attention grabbing and perhaps useful in the short-term, is quite limiting long-term. And yet, I'm certainly intrigued by a lot of what's been happening over the past few months, in terms of somewhat ad hoc groups coming together and protesting things they just know are not right. While I still don't agree with the denial of service tactics of "Anonymous" and its Operation Payback, I've been saying for a while that this really is a moment when centralized top-down legacy systems are coming into conflict with distributed, decentralized, bottom-up systems -- and not understanding them at all.

Michael Scott points us to an opinion piece from lawyer Douglas Wood, in which he does a nice job describing what he refers to as "The Party of We," which he notes is already in control.

I think that final point is the part that is the most interesting, and the least understood in many of the discussions around what's happening online. In the past, with traditional systems, if you didn't agree with something, you would just protest. But if you look at what's been happening lately, when the public doesn't agree with something -- official secrecy, draconian copyright laws, censorship, privacy violations, etc. -- rather than just protesting, they're simply routing around those things. It's an incredibly important point. They're not protesting by saying "this will not stand." They're protesting by saying "your laws don't matter, because we can simply route around them."

That's a hell of a lot more powerful than most people realize.

Of course, I already know that some will mock this, saying that it's just a bunch of kids (probably "entitled" kids -- or maybe "freeloading" kids) "breaking the law" and such. Or they'll say that the recent arrests of a few folks show that they can't really route around the system. But I think that significantly underestimates the long-term impacts of what's happening. Whether or not you want to call it the "We Party," it does seem clear that a large (and growing) group of people have realized that code trumps laws, and no matter what laws are put in place to try to beat back code, code will always win.

What's most important is the tipping point, spawned not by Assange but by a new body politic -- a new party of individuals bonded by commonality of interest not defined by national or geographic boundaries. The Party of We.

In response to the attacks on Wikileaks, this virtual We Party, comprised of citizens of the world, unleashed an unprecedented -- and united -- attack on parts of the infrastructure that transact payments and sustain eCommerce and for a brief moment shut critical parts of it down.

This was unprecedented not because it hasn't been tried before (even with some success), but because its success, however brief the moment may have been, was only reversed by those who started it and who had a change of heart. Furthermore, it was novel in its motivation not to hack a system or engage in fraud or greed, but rather in support of a cause -- a belief in the idea and purity of unencumbered speech.

What's left out of this is that it's not actually a party. It's not actually an organization at all, which is part of what makes it so powerful. With an organization you can attack the organization or cut off its head. When it's just a whole bunch of people who understand the power of technology, plucking out a few people that can be tracked down does nothing other than attract more people to the power of code.

Whether or not you agree with the concept of "The We Party," or what they're doing, it's difficult to not recognize that what's been happening is significant, meaningful and important.

Filed Under: anonymous, distributed, people, politics, technology, we, wikileaks

NY Times Editor Says He's 'Alarmed' By The Idea That The US Might Try To Prosecute Wikileaks

from the took-them-long-enough dept

One of the more frustrating things about the press's reaction to Wikileaks was that so many of them tried to shy away from the fact that the same laws that protected them as journalists almost certainly protected Wikileaks as well -- and any legal attack on the organization or someone like Julian Assange could come back to haunt the journalists themselves. So it's nice to see NY Times executive editor Bill Keller (who has detailed his contentious relationship with Wikileaks and Assange) finally come out and say that he would be alarmed by any legal action taken against Wikileaks:

"It's very hard to conceive of a prosecution of Julian Assange that wouldn't stretch the law in a way that would be applicable to us," said Keller. "Whatever one thinks of Julian Assange, certainly American journalists, and other journalists, should feel a sense of alarm at any legal action that tends to punish Assange for doing essentially what journalists do. That is to say, any use of the law to criminalize the publication of secrets."

The panel, where this was being discussed, also included former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith (now a Harvard Law Professor) who has spoken out in the past saying that he believes Wikileaks is legal. He noted that any lawsuit would be very difficult to pull off. He still thinks the administration will try to bring a lawsuit, but he expects that it will eventually fail in the courts. I'm still hopeful that the administration recognizes the likelihood of failure in any lawsuit and recognizes the dreadful legacy it will leave in suing an organization for publishing leaks.

Filed Under: bill keller, free speech, journalism, ny times, wikileaks

Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'

from the kind-of-misses-the-point dept

With UK police arresting five guys accused of participating in the Anonymous cyberattacks to make a statement about efforts to block Wikileaks, as well as the FBI saying that it has executed more than 40 search warrants in the US in trying to track down those responsible, I'm curious if anyone has stopped to realize just how much this misses the point. I agree that the Anonymous attacks were childish and probably counterproductive, but, in the end, are they really much more than an online sit in?

By spending so much time, effort and resources in trying to track down some people who were making a statement online, all that officials have done is to give them that much more attention -- which is exactly what they wanted. As warned, these law enforcement agencies are misunderstanding the situation. Arresting these folks just gives the whole effort more attention, and attracts more interest in it. And, given that Anonymous is almost entirely unstructured and not at all dependent on any sort of "leadership," it's not as if these arrests cut off any head of an organization. There is no organization, let alone a head to cut off. But by doing this, it makes effective martyrs out of those involved, and likely attracts even more people to "join the cause."

Filed Under: anonymous, arrests, wikileaks

The Background Story Of The NY Times' Relationship With Julian Assange

from the complex-actors-in-complex-situations dept

If you haven't yet, set aside some time to read the NY Times' executive editor Bill Keller's account of the paper's association with Julian Assange. It gives some interesting (and not too surprising) background details about the relationship, Assange himself, and Keller's views on the overall impact of Wikileaks. Assange, not surprisingly, does not come off too well in the account, reinforcing the reports of his being someone who has an incredible ego and a conspiratorial bent. By this point, such claims are pretty much old news, but from an anecdotal level, the story is still entertaining.

Keller's final suggestion that Wikileaks' impact has been "overblown" is belied somewhat by the fact that Keller just spilled so much ink on the background of the paper's association (and subsequent blacklisting) with the organization. There are other points that could be nitpicked, but it's not surprising that Keller seeks to position the NY Times in the best possible light, and perhaps minimize the contributions of Wikileaks itself. But, just the fact that the NYT's is now considering its own Wikileaks, shows that the idea certainly has changed the way many people think about this aspect of reporting.

I'd argue -- as some others have -- that the impact of Wikileaks has actually been both over- and under-estimated. And part of the problem is that so many people are quick to conflate the idea of such an organization with the single organization itself (or worse, with a single person in the form of an easily dislikable Julian Assange). But it's a mistake to think that just because the particular organization itself is flawed, that its existence and what it's accomplished so far won't have profound effects on secrecy in organizations (government and corporate), the practice of journalism itself (which has suddenly gotten a hint of what's possible), and the idea of distributed or "stateless" organizations as enablers of information flow. It's that last point that I think many are ignoring, and that will later prove to be a mistake.

Filed Under: bill keller, journalism, julian assange, leaks, ny times, sources, wikileaks
Companies: ny times, wikileaks

Spanish Gov't Simply Reinstates US-Driven Copyright Bill, Despite It Being Voted Down

from the funny-how-that-works dept

We've talked at length about the copyright situation in Spain, where the law has a rather reasonable take on things: noting that personal, non-commercial copying is not particularly harmful and that it makes no sense to impose secondary liability on software companies that make file sharing tools/search engines with legitimate uses. This is actually a pretty reasonable stance, but of course Hollywood freaked out and demanded changes -- and with the help of US diplomatic pressure demanding that Spain rewrite its copyright laws to make Hollywood happy -- those new laws were introduced (even as economists noted that it would be "useless and ineffective."

However, after one of the State Department cable leaks revealed how much US pressure was behind this law, even Spanish politicians started running for cover, and rejected the part of a larger bill that included these copyright changes. Of course, we immediately heard rumors that it would be coming back pretty quickly, and indeed, it's only been a few weeks, and it appears that Spanish politicians just did an end-run around the legislature's rejection of the amendment. Rather than drop the matter, the Spanish Senate just "revised" the legislation to include the amendment.

Perhaps someone familiar with Spanish law (and politics) can chime in to explain how this works. In the US, even if something like that happened it would have to go back to the legislature to approve down the road. Is that not the case in Spain? Either way, apparently a lot of people are not at all happy with this, and are protesting the efforts. In the meantime, of course, all this is doing is teaching yet another generation that copyright laws are simply tools of big companies and powerful countries to push around others. It certainly doesn't create any greater respect for the law.

Filed Under: copyright, spain, wikileaks

NY Times Creating Its Own Wikileaks?

from the catching-up dept

It's been funny watching critics of Wikileaks assume that if Julian Assange was somehow takendown, or that Wikileaks itself was somehow taken offline, that this concept of intermediaries to help publish leaked documents would somehow go away. In the past few months we've seen tons of new such operations spring up, and I'm sure some will start to find success (while others will fade away). However, what may be most interesting is that the mainstream press is finally waking up to the fact that they probably should have been doing this all along. The NY Times is apparently planning to create its own version of Wikileaks in the form of an "E-Z Pass lane for leakers." This idea of systems to help people leak info isn't going away. And, I'm curious if those who think that Wikileaks is criminally liable for "inducing" leaks, also think that the NY Times is similarly liable?

Filed Under: leaks, sources, wikileaks
Companies: ny times