Censorship of Wikileaks

[bayoab]

Amazon has put up a statement regarding claims that the US gov was involved.

Read it here.

There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate.

There have also been reports that it was prompted by massive DDOS attacks. That too is inaccurate. There were indeed large-scale DDOS attacks, but they were successfully defended against.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Noctis Lucis

Meanwhile, the previous TWO PMs of Australia are now officially at odds with the current one, with Kevin Rudd and John Howard, despite from different parties, and Howard being US' best friend... both pin the blame of the leaks on the US administration's poor security and internal leakers, not Assange.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

Ah, wise words from Rudd, and surprisingly, Howard.

Verily, they doth speaketh the truth indeed, unlike the current PM's statement that Assange should be arrested... maybe Rudd should try to take revenge on Gillard on this.

Meanwhile, we haven't heard from Tony Abbott on this issue other than saying that's he's "not surprised" at the comments at Rudd.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/3087480.htm

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says he is not surprised by the comments in the leaked cables.

"It's pretty clear that the Foreign Minister, the former prime minister's style is a problem," he said.

"You didn't need the release of confidential information to know that. You only needed to listen to Labor members around the corridors of Parliament."

And Julie Bishop, deputy Liberals leader, a pro-US and right-side party, seems more inclined to defend, goodness gracious, CHINA, than the Greens, who are on the left-side...

Coalition demands to know whether Julia Gillard shares Kevin Rudd's views on China

THE Coalition has demanded Julia Gillard spell out Labor's position on China following the leaking of conversations between Kevin Rudd and Hillary Clinton.

The opposition has also warned the government not to rush to condemn WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange until it can confirm Australian law has been breached in the leaking of a cable reporting the conversations.

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop has expressed concern at the revelation in leaked documents that Mr Rudd told the US Secretary of State in March last year that Australia and the US should work to integrate China into the international community but be prepared to “deploy force if everything goes wrong”.

According to the cable, written by a US diplomat, Mr Rudd, who was then prime minister, also said his vision for an Asia-Pacific Community was primarily an attempt to contain Chinese influence.

The Coalition wants to know whether the Prime Minister shares the view of her predecessor.

“I find it troubling that Mr Rudd as prime minister advised the United States that it should consider the use of force if other measures failed to counter China's growing influence,” Ms Bishop told ABC radio.

“That is not a view that he's expressed publicly and Julia Gillard should detail whether this remains the view of the Labor government.”

The government is refusing to comment on the substance of the leaked documents.

“The government has made it clear it has no intention to provide commentary on the content of classified US documents,” a spokesman for Ms Gillard said this morning.

Labor backbencher Doug Cameron defended Mr Rudd.

“Diplomacy is a tough game and international relationships is an extremely complex situation for governments to deal with, especially when it comes to the rise of China,” Senator Cameron told Sky News.

China would understand there was concern around the world about its rise and capacities.

“And that's natural,” he said.

Ms Bishop also warned the government not to rush to judge Australian WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange until it was clear that Australian laws had been breached.

“I note that the government is quick to condemn Julian Assange,” she said.

“Clearly there has been a significant breach of security within the United States and I have great sympathy for the apparent discomfort that the United States feels in these circumstances.

“The Australian government has been quick to condemn WikiLeaks. But I don't believe it should rush to judgment until it can confirm that any Australian laws have been broken.”

Tasmanian independent and Iraq war whistleblower Andrew Wilkie went a step further, defending Mr Assange and saying no Australian or US laws had been broken.

“I think one of the things that's remarkable about what's happening in recent days is that some of this information is in the public interest, and it's fascinating to watch,” he told ABC radio. “Some is just mightily entertaining.

“But what's a bit more alarming for me is the way the Australian government has been so quick to come to the support of the United States at the expense of an Australian citizen who's not doing anything illegal. “

Mr Wilkie also cast doubt on how serious Mr Rudd was in advising the United States to be prepared to consider force in relation to China, saying this was an “inconceivable” course of action.

“I'm wondering the degree to which Kevin Rudd was fair dinkum about that. You know, the prospect about using force against China or supporting the US using force against China just because it might be sitting slightly outside the international community from time to time, I think that is just an inconceivable notion.”

In what amounts to the first substantive mentions of Australia in the WikiLeaks cache of leaked foreign cables, Mr Rudd also said he argued in Beijing for a “small a” autonomy deal for Tibet and promised “special operations and counter-insurgency” support for the Pakistani government in its fight against extremists.

Greens leader Bob Brown defended Mr Rudd's comments to Ms Clinton on the use of force and his suggestion to Chinese leaders they consider the possibility of a “small a autonomy deal” for Tibet negotiated with the Dalai Lama.

“Goodness me, I'd ask the question of Julie Bishop, should we abandon the defence forces? Are there no circumstances in which force may be used?” Senator Brown told ABC radio.

“And when it comes to some forthright talking about the Dalai Lama and the need for consideration of autonomy in Tibet, in my experience, the great majority of Australians would be right behind Kevin Rudd in putting forward that option as a real one,” he said.

Senator Brown also argued that Mr Assange was entitled to the same treatment as any other Australian citizen who was abroad.

“There's been no charge against him. There's been no proceedings and certainly no conviction,” he said.

“The government, which is now being silent about it, needs to make it very clear that he has the same rights as any other Australian who is abroad and that his citizenship is in play and that his rights as an Australian overseas will be looked after by the Australian authorities.”

The Greens leader said Mr Assange was neither a “hero” nor a “quasi terrorist” but was a man who had come across a “great ream of foreign documents” which cast greater light on American foreign policy which was “not a bad thing in itself”.

New paradigm, I say.

[Noctis Lucis]

Originally Posted by ZephyrLeanne

snip

This is getting interesting. Maybe, when Rudd retires, or goes to the UN, he might well make up with Howard, like Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser or Hawke and Keating.

Meanwhile, Julie Bishop shows why, again, she's not going to be the 2nd female PM anytime soon.

I think that I'd even choose Sarah Hanson-Young or Larissa Walters over Bishop for PM. Rather have someone lean a little too left than a right-winger, just like her boss, Tony "Capt. Catholic" Abbott.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Amazon has put up a statement regarding claims that the US gov was involved.

Read it here.

Looks like Amazon is in on the FUD, too. Wikileaks DID painfully take months to go through all the information and redact names to protect the innocent. That's why there is such a gap between when they announce stuff, and when they release it. That's why they don't release everything at once, but batches at a time; they release as they get through redacting stuff. They ask major news organizations and the government for help redacting stuff; the government blew them off, though.

Still, I suppose the one point that does stand is that Wikileaks was hosting material that technically wasn't theirs.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by Noctis Lucis

This is getting interesting. Maybe, when Rudd retires, or goes to the UN, he might well make up with Howard, like Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser or Hawke and Keating.

Unlike Whitlam/Fraser or Hawke/Keating, Howard and Rudd never had much of a personal feud, just major policy differences. So it's probably OK with them.



Wait where was Howard...?

Howard not attending Stolen Generations apology

OK, maybe NOT.

Meanwhile, Julie Bishop shows why, again, she's not going to be the 2nd female PM anytime soon.

True... KATE ELLIS FOR PM anyone?

I think that I'd even choose Sarah Hanson-Young or Larissa Walters over Bishop for PM. Rather have someone lean a little too left than a right-winger, just like her boss, Tony "Capt. Catholic" Abbott.

Larissa Walters, yes...
SHY!? NO.

[Kaijo]

Paypal admits dropping wikileaks under US pressure, and Mastercard is under DDOS attack.

The group, which has been targeting commercial sites that have cut their ties with WikiLeaks for some days, has also made threats to other organisations including Twitter, which it says is suppressing the site.

"We will fire at anything or anyone that tries to censor WikiLeaks, including multibillion-dollar companies such as PayPal," a statement circulating online, apparently from Operation: Payback, said.

"Twitter, you're next for censoring #WikiLeaks discussion. The major shitstorm has begun," it said.

The group, which calls itself "an anonymous, decentralised movement that fights against censorship and copywrong", and has been linked to the influential internet messageboard 4Chan, argues that such steps "are long strides closer to a world where we cannot say what we think and are unable to express our opinions and ideas".

This will, of course, prompt governments to respond, and Anonymous will up the ante. This is the first real infowar, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. But more importantly, remember these times, for they are the opening salvo of something larger.

The revolution has begun; are you in or out?

[synaesthetic]

I'll believe it when I see them doing more than just annoying companies with DDoS attacks. Anon talks big but hasn't done much except harass scientologists while wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

[Asuras]

I listen to TooL and their rejection of Scientology more than Anon's. I'll admit, they're slightly unnerving, but I don't ever hear anything about their... Works, counting out YouTube videos.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by KyuuA4

A coup d'etat in America? Now, that'll be the day. And if society's elites keep pushing America in this direction -- it may very well happen. After that, y'gotta wonder what will happen to the State of the Union.

Just like how people are talking about the governments over-reacting to the crap that is Wikileaks whose releases are hardly ground-breaking aren't you guys overreacting to this as well?

I mean come on, civil war? Coup d'etat?

I'd be pretty dissappointed if an attention-seeker nobody like Assange was able to accomplish that.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Amazon has put up a statement regarding claims that the US gov was involved.

Read it here.

100% not credible. There were earlier confirmed statements from Amazon that they were receiving inquiries from Lieberman staffers if there were plans to take down the site.

This is a classic "legal department clamping down" cover-your-ass-afterwards statement, truth be damned.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

Just like how people are talking about the governments over-reacting to the crap that is Wikileaks whose releases are hardly ground-breaking aren't you guys overreacting to this as well?

I mean come on, civil war? Coup d'etat?

No Coup d'etat needed. Bush and his cabal have demonstrated before and during the Iraq war how easily fundamental human and citizen rights can be denied in America even without a formal Coup. It was simply a reply to Ithreko, no prediction or intention.

I'd be pretty dissappointed if an attention-seeker nobody like Assange was able to accomplish that.

Either you're not reading very closely or not understanding something. Wikileaks or Assange aren't trying to cause a Coup or a secession, they are simply running a site enabling whistleblowers. I think you're confusing a couple of things here.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Either you're not reading very closely or not understanding something. Wikileaks or Assange aren't trying to cause a Coup or a secession, they are simply running a site enabling whistleblowers. I think you're confusing a couple of things here.

Nah, if I was blunt and just plain generalizing (as in speaking of the average person)... where he comes from, many people like to see themselves as victims and heroes (in exactly that order btw). The whole media is designed to generate and support such a mentality.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by Mentar

No Coup d'etat needed. Bush and his cabal have demonstrated before and during the Iraq war how easily fundamental human and citizen rights can be denied in America even without a formal Coup. It was simply a reply to Ithreko, no prediction or intention.

Either you're not reading very closely or not understanding something. Wikileaks or Assange aren't trying to cause a Coup or a secession, they are simply running a site enabling whistleblowers. I think you're confusing a couple of things here.

No it was mainly to the general replies about people talking about civil war this and that. It was also talked about earlier in this thread too.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The whole media is designed to generate and support such a mentality.

Don't know dude, but the media is designed to entertain people. The victims and heroes theme is just fashionable at the moment.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Sides

Don't know dude, but the media is designed to entertain people. The victims and heroes theme is just fashionable at the moment.

Well, you are right, and a little bit wrong. You are right that the media is primarily designed to entertain. You are a little wrong in thinking that victims/heroes themes are just a fashionable interest. For example if you want to make a US movie that shows the american military (lets say Transformers or Pearl Harbor for example)... you are not allowed to show the american military in a remotely bad light when you want to have their support in the making of the movie (as in the real gear).
In a sense this encourages movie makers to be more US military friendly (again blunt: portray them as heroes, fighting for the victimized people around the world etc.) in order to get the real military gear shown in their movies - which looks more authentic of course (and has a potentially higher entertainment factor).
I could find other examples... (like getting filming permits for special places)... but I don't want to appear too biased in the matter.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Mentar

100% not credible. There were earlier confirmed statements from Amazon that they were receiving inquiries from Lieberman staffers if there were plans to take down the site.

This is a classic "legal department clamping down" cover-your-ass-afterwards statement, truth be damned.

A very quick google suggests (proves if you believe the interviews) that nothing more happened than the equivalent of a IT security officer calling a company to tell them they had an infected computer. And if you read the PR by Lieberman, he's basically taking credit for telling Amazon they had a TOS violation. There is no suggestion of any political pressure.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by bayoab

A very quick google suggests (proves if you believe the interviews) that nothing more happened than the equivalent of a IT security officer calling a company to tell them they had an infected computer. And if you read the PR by Lieberman, he's basically taking credit for telling Amazon they had a TOS violation. There is no suggestion of any political pressure.

Come on guys it is pure speculation on what was going on, but after this stunt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/wo...s-elmasri.html

You have to be very gullible when you think that this would not have had consequences for Amazon if they did not quit the WikiLeaks' server hosting. I think the government gave Amazon a broad hint and Amazon instantly complied. This is a matter of risk management in a corporate business, nothing else (little hint: anticipatory compliance).

[germanturkey]

the dos attacks are pointless, and i'm disappointed at Gizmodo/Gawker for posting an article about a LOIC, which directly or indirectly allows you to participate in the attacks. like, congrats. you took down the visa and mastercard websites, but i can still use my visa card. you screw that up, and maybe people will notice, but for the time being, you're as insignificant as the doomsday preacher on the street corner. its like you're a teenager who's disgruntled with school so you write bomb on a mousepad and hope to take down the system. grow up.

[flying ^]

that's it i'll contact "The Jester" to DDOS 4chan to the point they get booted out of servers

[Vexx]

From the guy who actually published the "Pentagon Papers" that revealed just how screwed up things were,

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/publ...-press-release

“That’s just a cover for people who don’t want to admit that they oppose any and all exposure of even the most misguided, secretive foreign policy. The truth is that EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”