FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WIKILEAKS
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:17 am    Post subject: WIKILEAKS Reply with quote

Just discovered: WIKILEAKS
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks:About

" ... could become as important a journalistic tool
as the Freedom of Information Act."
— Time Magazine

Quote:
Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

Whistleblowers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. (but hopefully not like fucking psychos with illuminati theories --- unless you can post their addresses -- this is for serious shit)

Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever.

Wikileaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.

Our public Advisory Board, which is still in formation, includes courageous journalists, representatives from refugee communities, ethics and anti-corruption campaigners, including a former national head of Transparency International, human rights campaigners, lawyers and cryptographers.

There are currently over 1,200 registered volunteers, but we need more people involved at an organizational level.

as recent history shows, misleading leaks and misinformation already exist in the mainstream media, an obvious example being the lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of misinformation will find themselves undone by Wikileaks, equipped as it is to scrutinize leaked documents in a way that no mainstream media outlet is capable of.

Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-Western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in Western administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically, to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers.

Should the press really be free?
In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

Europeans sometimes criticize the freedom of the press in the United States, pointing to a salacious (Suggestive of or tending to moral looseness) mainstream media. But that is not democratized revelation, rather it is the discovery by accountants that is a lot cheaper to print celebratory gossip than it is to fund investigative journalists.

Does Wikileaks support corporate whistleblowers?
It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.

We also have many thousands of Cover Domains, such as https://destiny.mooo.com or https://ljsf.org and you may write to us or ask around for others.

Our servers are distributed over multiple international jurisdictions and do not keep logs. Hence these logs can not be seized. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts of our organization and volunteers must conspire with each other to strip submitters of their anonymity.

Are you at all worried that Wikileaks might become a tool for propagandists?
Every day the media publishes the press releases of governments, companies and other vested interests without changing a line. And they often do this without telling readers what is happening.

In many liberal democracies, the present sequence of events is that people get their news about public affairs by politicians, for example, releasing a statement that is carefully crafted for the media (certainly no assurance against propaganda here). The media, which is supposed to be independent then choose to write stories based on the public statement.

Wikileaks will publish original documents that were never crafted to be media statements. The newsworthiness of that will be in the eye of the beholder rather than in eye of the public figure and the journalist.

The potential of Wikileaks is mass uncensored news. It may be more cumbersome than an online newspaper (or not, if you know what you're looking for!) but it's hard to imagine it being more propagandist than most of the media today.

Because sources who are of very substantial political or intelligence interest may have their computers bugged or their homes fitted with hidden video cameras or other surveillance technology, we suggest very high-risk leaks are done out of the home.

For the strongest anonymity we use a combination of postal and electronic techniques.

Tor was critically mentioned in New Scientist. What New Scientist did not divulge is that the person they quoted, Ben Laurie, is one of our advisory board experts!

We don't force everyone to use time consuming methods that are capable of withstanding the National Security Agency, rather we let truth tellers choose their own balance of risks and opportunities depending on their circumstances.


MORE http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks:About
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Category:United_States
Red Cross Monitors Barred From Guantánamo
FBI pedophile symbols (if yer not a pedo, don't buy this nifty-looking jewelry)
Internet Censorship in Thailand - Many expect further arrests as the Thai government flexes the muscles of the new Act. It is likely further arrests will occur over pornography and the use of circumvention software or anonymous proxies which conceal a user's IP address. The criminalisation of concealing one's IP address actually makes this law the centrepiece of much more draconian Internet censorship than that in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Vietnam.
Quote:
Media/Listen Up, Whistleblowers!
If all goes as planned, leaking sensitive information or government documents will soon be safe and untraceable. Whistleblowers will be able to post documents online without fear of reprisals or arrest.

The way it works:
Normally an email or a document posted to a Web site can be traced back to its source because each bit of data carries the IP address of the last server that it passed through. When a whistleblower uses WikiLeaks, the IP address that data packets normally carry will be routed through something called an "Onion Router" called Tor which is (who knew?) a well known annonymising protocol. Tor whould route data through a network of servers that use cryptography to hide the path that the packets took.


One Bio I thought I'd include becz I simply didn't know this:
Quote:
Mike Gravel
Fearless assistance in the leaking of the Pentagon Papers

Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel (born May 13, 1930), is a former Democratic United States Senator from Alaska, having served for two terms, from 1969 to 1981. He is primarily known for his efforts in ending the draft following the Vietnam War and for having put the Pentagon Papers into the public record in 1971. He is currently a candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

In 1971 Gravel played a key role in the release of the Pentagon Papers — a large collection of secret government documents pertaining to the Vietnam War — which were made public by former Defense Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg. Gravel inserted 4,100 pages of the Papers into the Congressional Record of his Senate Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds. These pages were later issued by the Beacon Press as the "Senator Gravel Edition" — the most complete edition of the Pentagon Papers to be published. The "Gravel Edition" was edited and annotated by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and included an additional volume of analytical articles on the origins and progress of the war, also edited by Chomsky and Zinn.

Also in 1971, Gravel embarked on a one-man filibuster against legislation renewing the military draft. Using various parliamentary maneuvers, Gravel was able to block the bill for five months before President Richard Nixon and Senate Republicans agreed to allow the draft to expire in 1973.


Suggestion: I'm willing to bet they don't want to discuss the credibility and veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Back to top
Tom



Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 130
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Suggestion: I'm willing to bet they don't want to discuss the credibility and veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Dude, I kind of keep you in high regards, so please
THIS you have to explain.

I get, that you have a broad (too broad?) definition of Zionism, but the fucking Protocols? I do not get it. And this coming from you...

_________________
I do not want to believe,
I want to KNOW!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that what we have here is a case of misinterpretation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
Dude, I kind of keep you in high regards, so please
THIS you have to explain.

I get, that you have a broad (too broad?) definition of Zionism, but the fucking Protocols? I do not get it. And this coming from you...


Tom,
I don't understand your question. A broad defn of Zionism? Please explain.

The Protocols were raised on another topic. I'm suggesting that Wikileaks is NOT a forum to discuss that "leak" from the 1800's.

Is it?

Gary
Back to top
e-lamb



Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

US judge arranges summary execution of Wikileaks.org
Many-headed whistleblower site still standing

By Dan Goodin in San Francisco

Published Tuesday 19th February 2008 02:31 GMT


The US site for Wikileaks, a website that makes it easy for whistleblowers to leak documents, has been knocked off the internet after hosting evidence that claimed a bank located in the Cayman Islands engaged in money laundering and tax evasion.

The main site for Wikileaks was disconnected, Dynadot and the US-based company that hosted the site agreed to lock the wikileaks.org domain name so it can't be transferred to another provider. A federal judge signed off on the agreement on Friday (15 Feb).

The agreement came in a lawsuit brought by Bank Julius Baer, the parent company of the Cayman bank. After trying unsuccessfully to get Wikileaks to remove the documents, Swiss-based Julius Baer went after Dynadot, which according to this copy of the court order, agreed to take down the site in exchange for the suit against it being dismissed. In addition, Dynadot agreed to turn over records related to Wikileaks, including "IP addresses and associated data used by any person, other than Dynadot, who accessed the account for the domain name".

Wikileaks, allows whistleblowers to post documents anonymously. At least when its webhost isn't coerced into turning over IP addresses.

According to this piece from Wired News, Wikileaks was unable to argue its position on the matter at a Friday court hearing because it only learned of the hearing a few hours before it started. Astonishingly, US District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California signed off on the stipulation, anyway.

The episode is another reminder that an organization's security is only as good as the security of the people who provide its connection. Wikileaks claims that it is an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis". But this is true only if its webhosts can be trusted not to pull the plug on its customers or divulge client information.

In this case, Julius Baer quickly realized it couldn't silence Wikileaks, so it went after a weaker link in the chain, which evidently was much less willing to put up a fight.

Wikileaks was founded in 2006 by people from a host of countries, including the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. It has generated headlines by hosting documents exposing several high-profile scandals, including those related to the collapse of the UK's Northern Rock bank and to prisons in Iraq and and Guantanamo Bay. The site says it has posted more than 1.2 million documents.

According to Julius Baer, a former vice president called Rudolf Elmer posted the documents, which purport to show that the Cayman Islands bank helped customers hide assets and launder funds.

The contested documents remain available on Wikileaks websites hosted in other countries, including in here in Belgium and here in India. The site says here that over the past few days it has also withstood a 500 Mbps denial-of-service attack and a fire to its uninterruptible power supply.

Of course, there's no evidence that Julius Baer was behind either the attacks or the fire. But it's clear that Wikileaks hasn't been silenced, at least for now.

Hey, maybe there really is something to these claims about being uncensorable. ®
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

e-lamb wrote:
US judge arranges summary execution of Wikileaks.org


So that's why it's numerical IP, not domain name.
Back to top
Tom



Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 130
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary,
It looked like you give any credibility to the protocols - that is why I was surprised. The only explaination seemed to be, that you see the protocols in a broader zionistic context, and NOT exclusivly in a jewish context...
what is NOT my opinion, by the way.
I thought that the fraudulance of the protocols was established, but maybe I did not dig deep enough....something about a french satire on Napoleon being the original source...
Anyway, it just seems to me like anti-semitic propaganda, basta.

_________________
I do not want to believe,
I want to KNOW!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
Gary,

Anyway, it just seems to me like anti-semitic propaganda, basta.


Tom,
A) I am a Jew. I've always been a Jew. I've said so before. By heritage, birth, not religion. I have four Jewish grandparents from the Ukraine area. I assume they were all Ashkenazi, and I have not done any kind of geneology. I've read varying reports on links to Palestine or none. Maybe I could if I went to Minsk or visited some nearby towns, but I don't know exact birthdates dates or towns. Probably no records. I'm not "Jewish enough" to be accepted within ethnic or religious circles, yet I could still be subject to extermination by some misguided zealots.

B) I oppose Zionism. It has ideological roots and similarities to fascism, as discussed by anti-Zionist rabbis and by atheist socialists like Lenni Brenner, including overt admiration of Mussolini and Hitler by leaders of Irgun (Lehi) and Stern Gang, and instances of actual and attempted collaboration with these ultra-nationalist and racist regimes. Hence we see Zionism's core "racialist" aspects which defend Jewish blood and State at the expense of Arab lives (and even at the unnecessary loss of Jewish lives), and which puts Tribe above universal principles of Justice and Truth, and are violently opposed to any genuine cooperative democracy that includes Palestinians/Arabs. Also, many Zionists have a bitter hatred for Jews who do not prostrate themselves with unquestioning support for the Israeli State, masada2000 is one site with a S.H.I.T. list of Jews they hate.

C) Patrick thoroughly debunked the Protocols (in discussion with others who keep bringing them up), not only in terms of unproductive racist division, and not only as frauds or forgeries, but as completely irrelevant to current economic situations which they were cited to explain. However, I've seen that Patricks *facts* remain meaningless to anyone committed to that narrative.

I.E., Patrick debunked the suggestion that the corporate-capitalist global multi-national IMF/World Bank/USA conspiracy is really a Jewish plot based on the Protocols, Patrick explained in careful and logical detail why this is nonsense.

I.E., Protocols #23 (I think, or maybe #21) described a shift to Socialism and Collective or State Ownership spearheaded by Jewish persons, meant to enslave well-to-do bourgeois and strip them of property and freedom.

What we see everywhere instead is rampant privatization, not collectivization, the "selling off" or rather giveaway of publicly-owned resources and infrastructure -- shit we either 'own' collectively like mineral wealth and forests, or shit that was built and paid for by our tax dollars or those of our (American) ancestors, i.e. roads, etc.
What we see is the IMF imposing "structural adjustment policies" in conjunction with loans to governments, such that the loans only serve the interests of multi-national corporations and banks, while screwing the poor who need them for real economic development (loans for farm equipment, seed, fertilizer, indigenous industrialization, etc.).
What we see is that public goods such as low-cost credits for farmers --- or even govt-supplied baby chicks to child-rearing mothers --- is sanctioned as being "anti-free market" by a global capitalist regime (mostly USA, IMF) that operates by free market principles only to the extent that it is convenient and profitable, and otherwise overrides them with "national interests".

SO, this is the 180° opposite of the Protocols. Right???

LOOK IT UP: This forum search is kinda flaky, so go to Google, Advanced, and type in PatrickSMcNally and Protocols, limited to the Domain breakfornews.com. There you can read exactly what Patrick wrote, lest I misinterpret.


HENCE, to repeat myself for the third or so time:

Quote:
I'm willing to bet Wikileaks volunteers DO NOT want to discuss the credibility and veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Rather they seem interested in discussing leaks of recent govt and corporate criminality, not discredited rumors from Tsarist Russia.

This is quite beyond tedious.

"NOT" means negation, not support. If this is still unclear at this point, I really don't mean to be mean and nasty to you for the sake of insults, but if you cannot understand the word "don't" and the context, or if you cannot recall the recent history of these debates (such as introduced by NWOpposer at least 6 times) on this B4N forum, why are you still here hoping that you can "know" rather than "believe"?

OK, I apologize for cutting you down on reading comprehension, you seem like a really sincere guy, and really interested in understanding all this stuff, as much as any of us. And my comment could have been ambiguous if you were unaware of previous endless debates and arguments on this topic.
Back to top
Tom



Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 130
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thx for clearing that up, Gary.
I found your statement to be ambivalent in meaning, and wanted clearification (and boy, did I get it! Wink ).
Thank you for the hint on the debunking by Patrick
- of course by rule of thumb nobody can be expected to have read all the threads on B4N, so while you might feel that question was totally out of line, I just did not know better.
Back to Wikileaks - did you or Patrick try to bring the protocols up? Is not the proof in the eating of the pudding?

_________________
I do not want to believe,
I want to KNOW!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thread in question begins here:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28538&highlight=
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SidVicious



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 338
Location: AU

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry guys Embarassed



No, just kidding, I wanted to see what was up. I assume, presume rather that dilbert is referring to me when he talks about people 'commited to that narrative' because I've mentioned it a few times.

The book is all over the world, copies are in the millions.

I think there's more to it than dilbert infers, but oh well.


Ok, back to wikileaks!!

Anything good on there?

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom



Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 130
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ Gary
Talk about lost in translation - I just got the meaning of your statement:
Quote:
I'm suggesting that Wikileaks is NOT a forum to discuss that "leak" from the 1800's.

It took me a while...
Quote:
Back to Wikileaks - did you or Patrick try to bring the protocols up? Is not the proof in the eating of the pudding?

Feel a bit stupid now Embarassed
Just sloppy reading, I guess - Mea Culpa

_________________
I do not want to believe,
I want to KNOW!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.