Friday, December 31, 2010
Liberian President Charles Taylor Departs Sierra Leone for the Hague. What is the case in Kenya?
Is this is a precedent setting trial? Will it determine Sudan's President El Bashir's fate if he ever goes to trial? What about Mugabe? And then.......News elsewhere......
In December 2010, Kenyan MPs passed a motion urging the government to repeal the International Crimes Act and pull out of the ICC.
Sudan is not a member of ICC however, but its President, El Bashir is a fugitive! A man on the run.
Kenyan IDPs are still unsettled to date
Monday, December 13, 2010
December - "Operation Blackface"
“Black Face” is an event scheduled on 18th December 2010 that would see a “Black Saturday”. People around the internet would display a black profile pic across the major social networking websites to protest against the state’s hostility against whistle blowers (Wikileaks and Julian Assange). It would also see a number of people around the globe wearing black clothes or tying black badges on arms. The very same day supporters of life, liberty, freedom and transparency would write a common e-mail to UK Supreme Court (enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk ) as a symbolic message from the well meaning citizens across the globe, pleading what the highest court could do to set a precedent for the generations to come that would protect whistle-blowers and free media.
This message would demonstrate the strength of the silent majority which today, is in favor of Julian & friends and against the governments in front of governments across the globe. This message would also suggest the governments that the citizens have digested and accepted the bitter truth as it came to them, now it is turn of state to have a face-off with the truth and respect those who helped bringing it out or else the majority would overrule them someday.
Facebook event - http://on.fb.me/eGw2VD
Facebook page - http://on.fb.me/fbEfCe
This message would demonstrate the strength of the silent majority which today, is in favor of Julian & friends and against the governments in front of governments across the globe. This message would also suggest the governments that the citizens have digested and accepted the bitter truth as it came to them, now it is turn of state to have a face-off with the truth and respect those who helped bringing it out or else the majority would overrule them someday.
Facebook event - http://on.fb.me/eGw2VD
Facebook page - http://on.fb.me/fbEfCe
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Media Comes To The Defense Of WikiLeaks At LeWeb: “The Leakers Will Win”
Today during the Media Panel at LeWeb ’10 in Paris, France, there was one thing on everyones’ mind: WikiLeaks.
“This is a turning point for the Internet — it’s not just about WikiLeaks anymore,” Weblogs SL’s Julio Alonso said. ”What happens to WikiLeaks will get applied to others later on,” he warned.
“This is the first attempt at censorship of the Internet by all the governments of the planet,” Wikio’s Pierre Chappaz added. “Despite all the attacks, I’m optimistic that the information will survive,” he added.
When moderator Adrian Monck asked if this would cast a shadow on the United States in particular, Techmeme’s Gabe Rivera said he thought it already has in some ways. Rivera noted that just the tone of the crowd at LeWeb proves that to some extent. He also singled out U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman suggesting that The New York Times could be a target because of their publication of some of the cables. “It underscores that there’s really no essential difference between what WikiLeaks is doing and what The New York Times does,” he said. Rivera said that is something to be concerned about.
“We’ve pushed the theory of Internet censorship to the very edge,” The Wall Street Journal Europe’s Ben Rooney added.
“We have to speak about what’s happening,” Chappaz said. ”I’m amazed by the silence of the traditional media. This is a systematic attack. We have to explain to the traditional media. The stakes are about the free press,” he continued.
Alonso agreed. “The first line of defense is speaking about it,” he said.
Rivera added that the leakers aren’t going to lose this war. He cited mirror sites, Twitter accounts, Facebook messages, and all kinds of things that keep popping up to continue the data spread. “The leakers will win,” he said.
The panel seemed fairly convinced that even if P2P networks had to replace DNS, the information would indeed end up winning.
“The Internet is too strong. They’ll have a hard time getting it under control,” Chappaz wrapped up the panel with.
MG Siegler
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/media-wikileaks/
“This is a turning point for the Internet — it’s not just about WikiLeaks anymore,” Weblogs SL’s Julio Alonso said. ”What happens to WikiLeaks will get applied to others later on,” he warned.
“This is the first attempt at censorship of the Internet by all the governments of the planet,” Wikio’s Pierre Chappaz added. “Despite all the attacks, I’m optimistic that the information will survive,” he added.
When moderator Adrian Monck asked if this would cast a shadow on the United States in particular, Techmeme’s Gabe Rivera said he thought it already has in some ways. Rivera noted that just the tone of the crowd at LeWeb proves that to some extent. He also singled out U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman suggesting that The New York Times could be a target because of their publication of some of the cables. “It underscores that there’s really no essential difference between what WikiLeaks is doing and what The New York Times does,” he said. Rivera said that is something to be concerned about.
“We’ve pushed the theory of Internet censorship to the very edge,” The Wall Street Journal Europe’s Ben Rooney added.
“We have to speak about what’s happening,” Chappaz said. ”I’m amazed by the silence of the traditional media. This is a systematic attack. We have to explain to the traditional media. The stakes are about the free press,” he continued.
Alonso agreed. “The first line of defense is speaking about it,” he said.
Rivera added that the leakers aren’t going to lose this war. He cited mirror sites, Twitter accounts, Facebook messages, and all kinds of things that keep popping up to continue the data spread. “The leakers will win,” he said.
The panel seemed fairly convinced that even if P2P networks had to replace DNS, the information would indeed end up winning.
“The Internet is too strong. They’ll have a hard time getting it under control,” Chappaz wrapped up the panel with.
MG Siegler
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/media-wikileaks/
PayPal Responds to WikiLeaks Controversy
On December 4, PayPal announced that it had permanently restricted the account of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. At the time, the reason the company gave was that Assange had violated the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits using a PayPal account to promote or facilitate illegal activity.
PayPal Vice President of Platform, Mobile and New Ventures Osama Bedier elaborated on the company’s actions when pressed on stage at the LeWeb conference in Paris. He started by explaining the process the company takes for these decisions. “We have an acceptable use policy group,” Bedier explained, “to make sure that our customers are protected.” PayPal evaluates different situations and complaints to figure out whether someone is violating its acceptable use policy.
The acceptable use policy group had to address Julian Assange and WikiLeaks when the U.S. State Department issued a letter on November 27 stating that the activity of the WikiLeaks organization was deemed illegal in the U.S. “It was straightforward,” Bedier said, once the State Department made that declaration.
Bedier was also asked by The Telegraph’s Milo Yiannopoulos whether he was worried about hackers retaliating against PayPal for closing down Assange’s account, referring to recent attacks against it and Mastercard. The PayPal VP’s response was that hackers have always targeted the company, since it is one of the most successful payments companies in the world, and that this was no different.
http://mashable.com/2010/12/08/paypal-responds-to-wikileaks-controversy/
PayPal Vice President of Platform, Mobile and New Ventures Osama Bedier elaborated on the company’s actions when pressed on stage at the LeWeb conference in Paris. He started by explaining the process the company takes for these decisions. “We have an acceptable use policy group,” Bedier explained, “to make sure that our customers are protected.” PayPal evaluates different situations and complaints to figure out whether someone is violating its acceptable use policy.
The acceptable use policy group had to address Julian Assange and WikiLeaks when the U.S. State Department issued a letter on November 27 stating that the activity of the WikiLeaks organization was deemed illegal in the U.S. “It was straightforward,” Bedier said, once the State Department made that declaration.
Bedier was also asked by The Telegraph’s Milo Yiannopoulos whether he was worried about hackers retaliating against PayPal for closing down Assange’s account, referring to recent attacks against it and Mastercard. The PayPal VP’s response was that hackers have always targeted the company, since it is one of the most successful payments companies in the world, and that this was no different.
http://mashable.com/2010/12/08/paypal-responds-to-wikileaks-controversy/
PayPal VP On Blocking WikiLeaks: State Department Said It Was Illegal
Milo Yannopoulos’ very first question on stage to PayPal’s VP of Platform Osama Bedier was about why PayPal blocked WikiLeaks payments and froze its account. The question was met with boos from the mostly European audience.
In his answer Bedier made it seem like PayPal had complied with a governmental request to deny service to WikiLeaks, “We have an acceptable use policy and their job is make sure that our customers are protected, making sure that we comply with regulations around the world and making sure that we protect our brand.”
Bedier also said that PayPal’s decision was influenced by the fact that the State Department deemed WikiLeaks illegal in a letter sent on November 27th, a statement that was not followed up on by Yiannopoulos. It is still unclear what exact US laws WikiLeaks is breaking.
When asked about Mastercard.com going down earlier today and whether or not Paypal had fears of retaliation, “One of the signs that you’re a successful payments company is that hackers start to target you, this case isn’t anything different.”
Update: After talking to Bedier backstage, he clarified that the State Department did not directly talk to PayPal and that the letter in question here was actually sent by the State Department to WikiLeaks. I have changed the headline of this post to reflect this statement. Full text of the letter Osama said he was referencing and video of the talk, below:
Text of State Department letter to Wikileaks
Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:11am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Text of a letter from the State Department to Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, and his lawyer Jennifer Robinson concerning its intended publication of classified State Department documents. The letter, dated November 27, was released by the department.
Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:
I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents.
As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.
It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.
Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:
* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals — from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;
* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,
* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries – partners, allies and common stakeholders — to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.
In your letter, you say you want — consistent with your goal of “maximum disclosure” — information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of your actions.
Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases.
Sincerely,
(The letter is signed by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser to the State Department)
http://topicfire.com/share/PayPal-VP-On-Blocking-WikiLeaks-State-Department-Said-It-Was-Illegal-16267176.html
In his answer Bedier made it seem like PayPal had complied with a governmental request to deny service to WikiLeaks, “We have an acceptable use policy and their job is make sure that our customers are protected, making sure that we comply with regulations around the world and making sure that we protect our brand.”
Bedier also said that PayPal’s decision was influenced by the fact that the State Department deemed WikiLeaks illegal in a letter sent on November 27th, a statement that was not followed up on by Yiannopoulos. It is still unclear what exact US laws WikiLeaks is breaking.
When asked about Mastercard.com going down earlier today and whether or not Paypal had fears of retaliation, “One of the signs that you’re a successful payments company is that hackers start to target you, this case isn’t anything different.”
Update: After talking to Bedier backstage, he clarified that the State Department did not directly talk to PayPal and that the letter in question here was actually sent by the State Department to WikiLeaks. I have changed the headline of this post to reflect this statement. Full text of the letter Osama said he was referencing and video of the talk, below:
Text of State Department letter to Wikileaks
Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:11am EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Text of a letter from the State Department to Julian Assange, the founder of whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, and his lawyer Jennifer Robinson concerning its intended publication of classified State Department documents. The letter, dated November 27, was released by the department.
Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange:
I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government documents.
As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation of U.S. law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.
It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents.
Publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would:
* Place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals — from journalists to human rights activists and bloggers to soldiers to individuals providing information to further peace and security;
* Place at risk on-going military operations, including operations to stop terrorists, traffickers in human beings and illicit arms, violent criminal enterprises and other actors that threaten global security; and,
* Place at risk on-going cooperation between countries – partners, allies and common stakeholders — to confront common challenges from terrorism to pandemic diseases to nuclear proliferation that threaten global stability.
In your letter, you say you want — consistent with your goal of “maximum disclosure” — information regarding individuals who may be “at significant risk of harm” because of your actions.
Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals. You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger. We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified U.S. Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks’ databases.
Sincerely,
(The letter is signed by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser to the State Department)
http://topicfire.com/share/PayPal-VP-On-Blocking-WikiLeaks-State-Department-Said-It-Was-Illegal-16267176.html
Anonymous takes up the fight for WikiLeaks
Members of infamous hacker group Anonymous have reportedly taken up WikiLeaks' cause, launching denial of service attacks on a range of sites connected to founder Julian Assange.
According to Ars Technica, Anonymous has attacked sites including PayPal, Swiss bank PostFinance and the site of the Swedish prosecutors in Mr Assange's sexual assault case. An Anonymous member going by the alias Coldblood has told the BBC that targets are being made of sites that are ''bowing down to government pressure''.
"As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means,'' he said.
The group expressed a similar sentiment on their website (http://anonops.net/), stating that they ''will find and will attack those who stand against Wikileaks and we will support WikiLeaks in everything they need.''
PayPal was reportedly the group's first target after the company cut off WikiLeaks' account - the PayPal blog went offline for a short time yesterday, though the main site appeared unaffected. Attacks against PostFinance, who closed Mr Assange's account earlier this week, appear to have been more successful - Ars Technica reports the bank's site went offline for more than 16 hours. It remained inaccessible as of 1AM EST, but had come back online by 4.45AM.
Further attacks are reportedly planned against Twitter, after it was claimed the site had prevented the #wikileaks hashtag from appearing in the trending topics list. Twitter has denied the claims, saying there are a number of factors that determine whether a topic is trending or not.
Seemingly in response to actions by Anonymous, the group's site was itself taken down by a denial of service attack late yesterday, but was online by 5AM EST after it was moved to a new server.
Read More ... http://topicfire.com/share/Anonymous-takes-up-the-fight-for-WikiLeaks-16267259.html
According to Ars Technica, Anonymous has attacked sites including PayPal, Swiss bank PostFinance and the site of the Swedish prosecutors in Mr Assange's sexual assault case. An Anonymous member going by the alias Coldblood has told the BBC that targets are being made of sites that are ''bowing down to government pressure''.
"As an organisation we have always taken a strong stance on censorship and freedom of expression on the internet and come out against those who seek to destroy it by any means,'' he said.
The group expressed a similar sentiment on their website (http://anonops.net/), stating that they ''will find and will attack those who stand against Wikileaks and we will support WikiLeaks in everything they need.''
PayPal was reportedly the group's first target after the company cut off WikiLeaks' account - the PayPal blog went offline for a short time yesterday, though the main site appeared unaffected. Attacks against PostFinance, who closed Mr Assange's account earlier this week, appear to have been more successful - Ars Technica reports the bank's site went offline for more than 16 hours. It remained inaccessible as of 1AM EST, but had come back online by 4.45AM.
Further attacks are reportedly planned against Twitter, after it was claimed the site had prevented the #wikileaks hashtag from appearing in the trending topics list. Twitter has denied the claims, saying there are a number of factors that determine whether a topic is trending or not.
Seemingly in response to actions by Anonymous, the group's site was itself taken down by a denial of service attack late yesterday, but was online by 5AM EST after it was moved to a new server.
Read More ... http://topicfire.com/share/Anonymous-takes-up-the-fight-for-WikiLeaks-16267259.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)