(Big thanks to my friend Kristyn for hosting me at her apartment.)
Just a little more than a hundred people attended the seminar. This was the agenda:
8:00-8:55: Registration and Continental Breakfast
8:55-9:00: Welcome and Introductions
9:00-10:00: Inside the WikiLeaks Legal Team: Geoffrey Robertson, QC, Doughty Street Chambers, via Skype from London
10:00–10:15: Break
10:15-11:15: WikiLeaks and America’s Campaign Against Al-Qaeda: Eric Schmitt, New York Times
11:15-11:30: Break
11:30-12:30: The WikiLeaks Debate: Panelists: Lucy Dalglish [Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Executive Director], Don DeGabrielle [private international governmental investigations attorney, former U.S. Attorney, and former FBI Special Agent], David Adler [federal criminal defense attorney and former CIA officer] and Tom Forestier [Moderator; law firm managing shareholder].
Transcript of most of the seminar below. Quotations indicate exact speech. Brackets indicate my clarifications. Brackets with my “– DAL” signature indicate my comments. Everything else is paraphrase. Mistakes mine. This transcript assumes you have some familiarity with the material.
Geoffrey Robertson
Robertson began with three quotes: James Madison on the importance of a free press for governing knowledgeably, Theodore Roosevelt “calling on muckrackers to destroy what he called ‘the invisible government,'” and a Supreme Court opinion in New York Times Co. v. United States saying the only protection for the public lies in an enlightened citizenry. “Assange takes this philosophy seriously.”
Assange uses electronic methods to keep sources anonymous. “You could waterboard him for weeks, and he couldn’t name his source, because he wouldn’t know.”
WikiLeaks published exposes on “the malpractice of the church of Scientology” and “tax evasion in the Cayman Islands” and “banking fraud in Iceland”; “all these releases were of obvious media interest. Assange is often seen as being left-wing, but WikiLeaks published the so-called Climategate” wherein “Essex University seemed to be rigging the data.”
“In quick succession in 2010” WikiLeaks published “the material that is alleged to be posted by Bradley Manning. There was Collateral Murder, which was manslaughter. An extraordinary revelation. I thought it should have been called Collateral Manslaughter because it was a tape that showed the killing of two Reuters reporters, children, and several civilians.” It was “a war crime.”
Skype call interrupted by a Windows automatic update on the Texas side. Call resumed.
“Iraq-gate included 400,000 raw field reports that showed many thousand more civilian causalities than had been estimated. A treasure trove for future historians writing about that war, showing exactly how it was fought on the ground.”
“Obvious stories of public interest.” A “very interesting fact: in 2010, as these revelations were coming out, a number of countries were so disturbed by what WikiLeaks was doing that they dropped all WikiLeaks-related websites and threatened to jail any of their citizens who were caught sending material to WikiLeaks. Which countries were these? […] China, Syria, Russia, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabe.”
“It was with Cablegate in 2010 that we did get a burst of hysteria from the United States. It was the release of diplomatic cables […] published jointly by the New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel, with fact-checking, removal of names, and so on done together by all the organizations. Criticism from the government came not against the New York Times but singled out Assange,” casting him as “this peripatetic Australian with this supernatural power.”
When there was criticism of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp invading privacy with cell phone hacks there was “no real protest about” Murdoch from governments.
Vice President “Joe Biden accused” Assange “of being a hi-tech terrorist; “Huckabee called for his assassination”; Sarah Palin said “he should be hunted down like bin Laden.”
When going to visit Assange in Norfolk, Robertson keeps “an eye out for Navy SEALs.”
Robertson has received “death threats from middle America by email.”
Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense, said Cablegate resulted in “no long-term damage.”
The pragmatic United States diplomats were “so insightful that when all this was published, President Clinton suggested Assange was a secret CIA agent.”
“America was upset; its pride was wounded by this pesky Australian. It couldn’t — I guess because of the First Amendment and Democratic Party politics — attack the New York Times.” The attack on WikiLeaks is “a betrayal of the founding fathers who claimed belief in freedom.”
People keep saying “Assange has blood on his hands”; “let’s examine this”: “2.5 years and not a single causalty.” So “that’s the first point. No blood on WikiLeaks’ hands. Those who said there was were talking nonsense. We wouldn’t expect there to be casualties because these cables were not classified Top Secret” as the “Pentagon Papers” were. “Top Secret is a classification where there are likely reprisals from publication.” [Reviewing US government information on classification levels, I found nothing to support this claim. — DAL] “So obviously” the writers of “these cables didn’t expect reprisals.” That “two and a half million people had access to these particular cables” makes it “so entirely false to suggest lives would be at stake.”
“It’s the responsibility of a government that puts sources at risk to guard them; to encrypt their names, [to encrypt] cables, [and] to have a proper classification policy.”
It comes back to the Pentagon Papers and the principle that “the duty of government is to protect its sources.”
“Proper classification should” adhere to “four principles”: “Firstly, citizens have a right to know what the government does in their name”; “Secondly,” a “government has the responsibility to protect” sources”; “Thirdly, outsiders who have obtained it [classified information] should not be punished unless they got it by fraud” or “bribery”; and fourth, classification “should not stop whistleblowers from” revealing “war crimes.”
“It is not clear what communication there has been between Manning and Assange.”
“Look at the Espionage Act.” There are “three positions between journalists and sources. First is that the journalist receives the information unknowingly such as through the traditional brown paper envelope or through the Internet in various ways. It seems in that situation no one would suggest the publisher should be liable […] If it’s in the public interest, there should be no criticism in publishing [it].” 2. Intermediaries. With an “intermediary there is contact. The source says ‘I’ve got information of importance, how can I get it to you?’ […] The journalist says ‘drop it in a certain place at midnight’ […] arranging to receive information […] should not be criminal.” 3. “Where the journalist contacts the source and persuades him or her to breach confidentiality of government or bribes him, then that is soliciting and that should fall under the scope of the Espionage Act.”
Electronic leaks are “here to stay.” The “Wall Street Journal has something called Safe House that guarantees safety of information, if you trust Rupert Murdoch.” And there are “other sites outside the constraints of traditional publishers. So we’ve got to accept — governments and corporations have got to accept — that confidentiality is going to be limited where it deals with information of public interest. Information will not only leak; it will go viral on the Net. You remember, perhaps, that YouTube film set in Domino’s Pizza; a secret camera depicted photographs of one of the Domino’s Pizza cooks stuffing the pizza in his nose before” finishing with it, and “Domino’s stock went down 10%.”
“Corporations have to face up to the fact that this is the new power of ordinary people. Ordinary people — that [wrongly] condescending phrase.” We must “remember that WikiLeaks stands there […] at a time when Google is blocked by 25 countries in the world. You can’t get YouTube in Turkey.” Now there are “two billion people” connected online. “For better or worse, this prospect of breaches in confidentiality is here to stay.”
With “unredacted” material published “directly on to the Net there will be more danger, but perhaps more benefit. We must live with this” and “we should welcome” it.
“Some analysts say” that “the Arab Spring began with the revelation of the corruption in the Tunisian government […] through the revelation of the WikiLeaks cables […] The most virulent attack on WikiLeaks was made on January 14, 2011” when “it was accused of leading the protesters in Tunisia astray by false claims against their incorruptible president [… this] violent attack on Assange was made by one Colonel Gaddafi.”
(In response to a question:) “At the end of the day you have the community standard that provides that ultimate judgment on the whistleblower” and “that is ultimately for a jury to decide”; “Governments make offers to” mediate “whistleblowers, telling its agents, ‘You can approach Congressmen with complete confidence if you’ve got anything to reveal’; that hasn’t been found to be effective. There is just not the trust that is necessary. The journalists by themselves are more trusted […] It is a principle of journalistic ethics that they do not betray a source.”
“Who judges the whistleblower? The answer is: the whistleblower begins” with a “moral imperative to make the disclosure” and “so long as there is a public interest defense, it would be a jury that would provide the ultimate decision.”
Question from the audience [me]: “Has the Swedish prosecution given reasons why they cannot ask Assange the questions over the phone or some other medium?”
Robertson: “No they have not. There is no doubt that Mr. Assange is willing to answer questions. He waited in Sweden for six weeks waiting to be interrogated […] He offered to talk to them from Britain by telephone or Skype or by any number of means and the Swedish prosecutor refused […] The Swedish prosecutor takes the view that when [and if] he returns to Sweden […] he should not get bail […] and [that] he should be tried in secret, because in Sweden these cases are tried in secret.” [Gasps from the audience.] “There will be a whole host of other issues, but it’s not particularly germane to the WikiLeaks issues themselves.”
Question from the audience: “You talked about corporations and governments needing to understand that confidentiality is really limited by the need of the public’s interest and that there’s a balance there. I was wondering [if you can] define what would be the public interest that would [override] legitimate confidentiality needs.”
Robertson: “This” type of publication is “power for the powerless to affect the way corporations behave […] It’s one way in which Internet technology can democratize corporate activity, make corporations accountable for human rights violations. I suppose there’s a failure — a black area — in international law saying corporations are not subject to international criminal law.” But this new Internet technology is a way “of making corporations liable for human rights abuses.” When “corporate insiders are offered by WikiLeaks-type organizations or even by the newspapers, which as I’ve explained are trying to set up WikiLeaks-style electronic letterboxes — where they’re offering that kind of anonymity as a guarantee — that may tip the balance and make [the insiders] more inclined to take the risk to expose” abuses.
Question from the audience: “So far we’ve been talking about the legality of WikiLeaks.” Can you say “how many of your resources you are using against the extradition & sexual assault issues versus [how many resources you are using to defend] the legality of WikiLeaks?”
Robertson: “These battles have been going on for a while. There’s nothing much, in fact, in the Swedish allegations; I won’t go into it because to do so would take some time. But it’s not been the Swedish allegations themselves that cause any worry; they may have to be faced down eventually, and I think Mr. Assange would deal with them willingly if the prospects for extradition to the United States” weren’t so likely. Sweden has a “regrettable record of supporting extradition to the United States” and it “has been exposed by the UN criminal court for doing that.” [Murmurs of surprise.] “The real problem is the grand jury proceedings which are of course cloaked in secrecy and have been going on a while, and the United States government hasn’t announced any position; it seems content to play a cat-and-mouse game; Alan Dershowitz and I are advising Mr. Assange on that.” Grand juries “can be open-ended”; they “haven’t been used in Europe”; they’re “unique to the United States. It may well be that the focus of concern will shift to Mr. Manning’s trial; that will come up shortly. It would be helpful, as I say, if the US Justice Department would say one way or another, if the United States government would say if they propose to bring a case against Mr. Assange.”
Loud applause.
Eric Schmitt of the New York Times
Eric Schmitt
“The Assange I met was not the hi-tech terrorist as Biden described him nor the crusader as his lawyer described him. The Guardian had set up an awful Excel spreadsheet” for us to look through the documents in London. “Julian Assange was supposed to arrive and help us clarify the muck. There was this mystique about this guy.” The “Guardian was unclear about” where he was coming from [to London]; “it was Scandinavia.” Assange is “a striking figure: tall, lanky guy, about 6’2″ or 6’3″ with a shock of white hair.” He arrived “that night alert and disheveled in this kind of dingy coat, cargo pants, dirty white socks that sort of collapsed around his sneakers […] It was almost like Oz showing up to show you what’s going on behind the scenes. All he had with him was this huge backpack which he kind of sloughed off and from which were disgorged cables and” all sorts of computer equipment. And he had this “plastic box and he said, ‘In here are the crown jewels.'”
We needed to “figure out an arrangement for how we could get access for these documents back to New York.” It was “too long, too difficult” to go through the documents in the condition they were in. Once we achieved “access back to New York,” then “my colleagues using special technical means could essentially bundle these documents; we could give them search terms […] whether it was civilian causalities” or “relations with Pakistan.” And “over the next coming weeks as we did work out this arrangement with Assange and WikiLeaks […] we as a team at the New York Times in our own bunker […] were able to divide up the content of these documents and write up over the course of several weeks some five or six stories that ran in a package that day […] Assange had not placed restrictions on the material we used, he certainly didn’t” give us money or anything like that. He did ask for an “embargo”; he wanted it all to come out at the same time; “we had to settle on a common time and date.”
“With Assange, though, it was always a struggle figuring out who this guy was. He is a brilliant man to be sure, he’s very well-schooled in American history and American law,” and a “computer hacker, though he doesn’t like that term. He’s also incredibly paranoid, sees conspiracies everywhere, [and has] this kind of Peter Pan quality about him.” When “walking out with a Der Spiegel reporter, he started skipping ahead and humming this kind of tune” and then “continued the conversation.”
“The most difficult thing we had to deal with Assange” was what to do “about the names.” We at the New York Times “were very concerned about the safety of these individuals who had spoken to the Americans or the allied coalition […] it was very clear to us […] the Taliban would take a list, and they would remember and there would be a retaliation because that’s exactly what they had done [previously …] they had killed and intimidated [families …] so we took out names of individuals that we felt could be in danger […] we went to Assange and hoped” we could work together on redactions. Assange said, ‘That’s not what we’re going to do, we are an anti-secrecy organization. Sometimes there have to be casualties in this fight for transparency.'” That “wasn’t [our] position or that of” the Guardian or Der Spiegel. “We [at the New York Times] can’t be as certain as Geoffrey Robertson was now in claiming there was no harm, no injury [from these publications].”
“I participated in the workings of the Iraq War Logs which Assange had given us access to […] the diplomatic cables we did not get from Assange or WikiLeaks […] He was very angry with the New York Times […] throughout our collaboration our whatever you want to call it […] We consider WikiLeaks today a source, a very different source to be sure, but a source” [This position from the NYT puts all digital journalism, which is to say basically all journalism, at risk — DAL] “Julian Assange saw the four organizations in that room, that bunker in London, as journalistic collaborators. It depended on what day it was. On a certain day, Assange would say, ‘I’m a journalist today,’ and the second day, ‘I think I’m going to be a publisher today,’ and the third day, ‘I’m back to being an advocate’ […] Even he was conflicted about the role he played […] We [the New York Times] were not part of a crusade or the Musketeers or anything like that” [Why not? — DAL] He “was very angry we did not link to the WikiLeaks site.” Assange “was angry […] we did not stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him.”
“The impact of WikiLeaks has really set new standards, I think. This remains a gold mine not only for journalists but academic researchers. Any kind of story that comes up now, my editors say, ‘What’s in WikiLeaks about this story?’ If there’s a prominent new diplomat, ‘Go and search the WikiLeaks documents’; so, this is a rich trove of information […] It remains a very important source of information not only for understanding our foreign policy but to understand those we trust with our foreign policy […] Government has gone a long way to [ensure] this never [happens] again.” [Some government figure] “said it could take five more years to make sure our system is not vulnerable to another WikiLeaks-type attack […] Another effort of this kind is very unlikely. This was a perfect storm type of event […] The access that [Manning] had, the restrictions that were in place […] makes it very difficult to [redo] that.”
Assange “has contracted for a couple of books; those seem underway.” What takes the cake is that “a couple of weeks the RT Kremlin-sponsored news station” has agreed to host his television program. [RT bought the show; hosting is the wrong way to describe the licensing. –DAL]
“Bradley Manning is facing court martial now […] Obviously” Manning is “some disturbed young man.” But “it’s much less certain what’s going to happen with Julian Assange and what’s going to happen with WikiLeaks. This panel that’s in northern Virginia could very well issue some indictments, but it’s very unclear what path they may take.”
“We do have access at the New York Times of classified documents [as a general matter], but nothing like this; to get 90,000 electronic documents was overwhelming. There was nothing in those documents you could pull out and say, ‘Oh my God, that’s an incredible revelation’ — that’s not there. [There is however] a fine-textured, round-eye view of what’s going on with this war.” For example, “the number of IED attacks” or “the war is heating up again by 2007, and there’s no [help from the US government] despite the cries from the commanders.”
“The other thing [WikiLeaks] did was fill in gaps of stories we have written about [such as] the double-game Pakistan was playing with the United States […] While playing a very productive role helping the CIA round up Taliban, but at the very same time help the Taliban […] because Pakistan was taking a longer-term look […] because Pakistan wanted to make sure it had influence against its arch-rival India. So there’s this double-game that goes on to this day where Pakistan will cooperate in some areas but not in others […] Even if you discount half of these reports as biased by the Afghan intelligence service, it was still much more detailed than we ever had before […] Same thing with the Iraq documents.”
“WikiLeaks was severely chastened by the names released in the Afghan documents, so what did they do in these Iraq logs? They went the other way, using a computer program that took out almost every proper name […] if you get copies of the documents today, they’re virtually unusable. We had to redact, very carefully, a certain portion of the documents we put online. Robertson’s right in laying out the key stories that came out from these cables; these were finished diplomatic cables. What they’re saying in public is pretty much what they’re saying in private, but without so much detail.” [WTF. I list some of the cables indicative of lies here. — DAL]
“In my book with Thom Shanker, we talked a lot about the financing of terrorism.” The topic is “not as sexy as a SEAL team” blasting people. But the “funneling [of] a lot of money to terrorist groups” is important to understand; we talk about how individually these cables single out key allies in the Persian Gulf such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait […] This [Cablegate] was just a stunner to diplomats who have to deal with their counterparts every day […] You can imagine being a diplomat and having to face [the people you talk with] after this […] But it was also quite revealing in many ways […] as I think Robertson accurately pointed out, you had these cables talk about corruption […] I do believe this contributed to the Arab Spring. It wasn’t the sole cause, but it told people what they had all along suspected — but here are the nitty-gritty details. It did spark that [Arab Spring] outrage to a certain extent.”
“This is the latest issue of Rolling Stone with Michael Hastings interviewing Assange [Schmitt raises it in the air]. This is fascinating because Assange today, as he did then, criticizes the New York Times for this collusion with the United State government, [saying] that we’re in collusion with the CIA.” [In the article Assange does not mention the CIA in relation to the NYT, but rather says the NYT was “sucking up to the White House.” — DAL]. “But we believe our moral and ethical responsibility in dealing with very sensitive classified information” is to run it by the government. “We are going to write a story no matter what; that’s our going-in position with the government no matter what. [We ask the government] is there any reason” to treat this material differently. [The NYT says to the government:] “We’re going to give you a space to push back against this […] Are there any individuals we have missed that you think we should redact for their own personal safety […] Is there any sensitive information about intelligence [methods]” that we might jeopardize by publishing the story as-is. “We would have phone conversations telling [the government] ‘Here’s what’s going on with this classified information; we’re not giving you” prior restraint “here. Is there a legitimate national security interest in holding back material? This is responsible journalism. Respectable news organizations have always dealt with classified material like this.” [Questionable — DAL]
“This Administration didn’t come after us. In London we went through all these goofy rituals […] We couldn’t use our cell phones […] and we all kind of got into this.” We used a “secret code” to describe the information. “Package one was the Afghanistan documents; package two was Iraq; package three was the diplomatic cables. Because we didn’t know if the NSA was listening to our conversations.” [Contrast “goofy” with panelist statements below. — DAL]
“We have heated [internal] debates about sources: ‘Why is the New York Times doing this?’ Today I asked [a colleague], ‘Do you still have these concerns? It’s a year after these cables have come out. [My colleague said] ‘We still have these concerns, some day something’s going to happen to them [the informants]. But there’s been a chilling effect on our ability to acquire new contacts because WikiLeaks is out there. Everyone knows what it’s like to be WikiLeak’ed.” [I don’t understand how leak publications decrease the number of leaks. Perhaps Schmitt meant non-leak contacts are more afraid of the press now? — DAL]
“It’s a rare diplomatic meeting that doesn’t begin with a semi-serious joke: ‘What I’m about to say is not for WikiLeaks.'”
[People ask] “‘How could the American government be so incompetent to let this happen?’ It’s completely true we [as in the United States] classify too much. The State Department points their finger at the Defense Department, rightly so. The Pentagon came clean, embarrassingly so, about how little they had done to restrict this kind of thing. You had the ability to put a memory stick in a classified machine” and pretend to be copying Lady GaGa songs. It’s still an issue, “how little supervision there was over these classified machines.”
“The impact on journalists continues today.” Though “we have [already] gone through the big publicity burst of these documents, we continue to go back into the documents. The [Gitmo Files] did add more fidelity to our understanding of who’s being held in Guantanamo Bay. We dip back into WikiLeaks.”
“The State Department felt burned [by WikiLeaks] like no other agency did. [That’s] something that I think is really unfortunate for the transparency issue. After 9/11, the State Department lowered some of its walls” to help interagency communications “and that’s some of what Bradley Manning tapped into [and now] the walls have gone back up again.”
“Just some final thoughts on where this is going on the legal front. Lawyers are the guys trying to keep us out of jail.” One NYT lawyer, David McCraw, “offered some interesting observations here. David talked about how our Espionage Act […] has been written […] but so far it hasn’t been applied to publishers, it’s been applied to leakers. What McCraw later drilled into our editors and some of us were some of the things that makes it unlikely prosecutors will go after us. [That is] to redact sensitive information, giving the government the chance to have a space to push back, [discussing] what the public interest is in these stories […] What made it easier with the New York Times is that there were other, foreign publications that were going to go ahead with these publications, that wouldn’t have to answer to the US Government. The Obama Administration said let’s not go ahead with this at all, but if you have to do this at all, let’s do it in a responsible way. It really would have been pointless” to try to stop the global publishing.
“We didn’t want to appear to be collaborating with the Guardian in any way that [would have] made us” liable to UK laws. “We also wanted to maintain that distinction between journalist/source relationship with Julian Assange […] It was impossible to know just what he had done […] I asked Assange what he knew about Bradley Manning, and he would smile and say ‘We don’t know.'” But “these court proceeding seems to show otherwise.” And “could we at the New York Times be seen as aiding or abetting what Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks did? No one in the government has come after us. David [McCraw] also suggested to me that there are only three open-ended legal questions. The first is: ‘Should leakers have more protection?’ The Obama Administration has been very aggressive in going after leakers.” For example, a “former CIA operative named John Kiriakou has been gone after by the Justice Department for sharing information with reporters including one of my New York Times colleagues Scott Shane.” The mainstream news organizations have historically taken the position that it’s “illegal to leak” in exchange for the freedom for publishers to publish.” [Make an exchange in order to receive First Amendment protection? — DAL] “Courts have rarely recognized the right to retain and collect information. Are we” liable “if the government asked for the documents back? The Espionage Act could be read to allow such prosecution.”
“Would we sign on to an amicus brief to [defend] Julian Assange? Would we be reluctant at the New York Times to the lock arms with him?” [Questions posited as hypotheticals. His tone of voice and other remarks seemed to indicate the answers would be ‘No.’] “It’s always going to come back to the ‘Why we did this'” and “‘Why is it important to have to sources like this?’ We may never have WikiLeaks”-style “documents come this way to us again.”
“What did our most seasoned diplomats think of what we’re doing? Individuals who had nothing but casual contact with individuals might be captured or killed.” The questions “forced us to try to come to grips with what these different kinds of sources mean when we’re coming to this increasingly cyber-world. And finally I think it also underscores our obligation to verify this kind of material.” We’re back “where we started this conversation when I was sent to London. Are these documents forgeries or are they real? The ability to supply context is so important for journalists. And finally, ultimately, it’s to make sense of what’s complicated in a fast-paced world.”
Question from the audience [me]: “How much of the New York Times going to the government to give them a space to push back is really about maintaining access with the government to receive information, to receive authorized leaks and the like for domestic news and other information?”
Schmitt: We’re “not going to give the government the right of censorship, but [the right] to say, ‘You’re missing something here; you’re missing something about our operations and methods that you might be jeopardizing.’ They make their case; but, the decision to publish is up to us. Almost always we publish. There are small things we can do [such as] taking out a name that we think might not undercut the” overall story. “We don’t take things out because we think it will hurt our relationships with the government. It’s very rare that we get an authorized leak. It’s very rare to get the traditional brown envelope with documents. It’s more like a lawyer building a story by getting information from a variety of sources. The idea that [by giving the government a space to push back prior to publication] you’re somehow jeopardizing your relationship with the government to get freebie classified docs? It just doesn’t work that way.” [I’m not sold — DAL]
Question from the audience: “Do you think Assange has an ideology beyond transparency?”
Schmitt: “I don’t know. He clearly has an anti-war philosophy; that came through quite clear. There were some estimates coming from the Guardian of higher numbers … clearly this is something we went through very closely.” [This might have been a reference to Special Task Force 373 numbers, discrepancies noted by Jason Leopold — DAL]
Question from the audience: “You talked about bloggers; I wanted to see if you had any comment about Glenn Greenwald …”
Schmitt: “That’s probably a better question to ask to my colleagues such as Scott Shane.” Greenwald’s “voice is valuable. Like most bloggers, he has a point of view; you have to be careful with that.”
Question from the audience: “Had those documents not been acquired from WikiLeaks […] would have reported on it […] differently?” [I didn’t quite hear the question — DAL]
Schmitt: “We got the final tranche of cables from the Guardian; that’s public knowledge. We had a falling out with WikiLeaks. He felt we weren’t being fair to him. He was particularly upset about a profile we wrote about Bradley Manning and a profile we wrote about him. I don’t think we would have written it any differently. The source is giving you documents; then you have to look at the documents themselves. Julian Assange needed these news organizations and their technical skills as partnership, collaboration, whatever — he thought it was more of a journalistic collaboration. He just felt he didn’t have the technical skills” to analyze them journalistically. “He was savvy enough to know that and pick the new organizations that he did to have that impact. WikiLeaks is an unusual organization. It was, before it started imploding. Its main branch was in Germany; that was where a lot of its funding and volunteers came from. But it had branches in Scandanavia and this branch in Iceland. He knew he had a more sensitive liberal audience in Europe. He had El Pais in Spain and Le Monde in Paris for the diplomatic cables. Is his organization starting to fracture from internal fighting? People took the documents with them, virtually, and they started popping up. He started losing control of his organization.”
Concluded by moderator due to time.
Panel
Lucy Dalglish [Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Executive Director], Don DeGabrielle [private international governmental investigations attorney, former U.S. Attorney, and former FBI Special Agent], David Adler [federal criminal defense attorney and former CIA officer] and Tom Forestier [Moderator; law firm managing shareholder].
L to R: DeGabrielle, Dalglish, Adler, Forestier
Dalglish: “WikiLeaks is an inevitable thing; it’s the collision of technology and national security; if WikiLeaks didn’t do it, someone else would have invented it.”
Dalglish: “What makes WikiLeaks different than the Pentagon Papers is the speed and volume of the information. I understand why this makes various people in the government very anxious and very angry. I think they’re responding not so much to WikiLeaks and what it did, but what will happen next time.” These documents “were not the ‘crown jewels’ […] What happened in the WikiLeaks case was good journalism.”
Dalglish: “The question, wherever I go, is, ‘Is Julian Assange a journalist?’ Under the Espionage Act, that really doesn’t matter. Whom it really matters to are the journalists who have been out there year after year because they want the public to understand the process of what they are doing, the fairness. They really, really care. Under the law it doesn’t really make that much difference, except the US government has shown the more you are acting like a journalist the more they leave you alone.”
Dalglish: “The first group of documents was really dumped out there. Julian Assange started as identifying himself as an advocate, but more and more as a journalist; I think that was something his lawyers advised. And as time went on [WikiLeaks] started paying more and more attention to people on the ground. That’s just what I’m surmising they did.”
Dalglish: Assange “putting himself in the position of a journalist puts him in a better position if he were to be charged in the United States.”
Dalglish: “I was at a meeting at the Wye River Plantation, which is owned by the Aspen Institute. It had been a long time since there had been a meeting between intelligence chiefs from the CIA, the Justice Department, the military” and more. “I was flattered to be invited. The ground rules were, we could report on what was said, but we could not report who said. It became very clear — because they point-blank said it — that they do not believe there is even the slightest possibility of there being a whistleblower in the national security arena. There are whistleblowers in government, but not in national security. If you leak national security info, you are not a whistleblower — you are a felon. Period. That is the attitude this Administration takes. At a meeting this was verified by the president himself; he said to us” there are whistleblowers “but that doesn’t apply in the national security arena.”
Dalglish: James Risen has been “fighting a subpoena for many, many years.” I was told at that [Wye River Plantation] meeting that “by the way, this Risen subpoena is the last one you guys are going to see. We don’t need you anymore; we already know who you’re talking to.” And then Jane Mayer’s “article came out about Thomas Drake, about how the government is capable of tracking everything you do. Reporters, if you have a source to protect, stay off cell phones, stay off email; do what Bob Woodward did: use flowerpots, balconies, and parking garages. Look how long he was able to protect those sources using tried-and-true methods.”
DeGabrielle made a joke that Robertson’s Skype call interruption might have been shut down by the US Government.
DeGabrielle: “We believe firmly […] that indictments have a lot of power — they can ruin lives, families […] don’t just do it because you can.”
DeGabrielle: Quick point about Robertson’s remark on rendition and extradition. “They’re not the same thing. Rendition happens like with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. They’ll show up in the middle of the night with someone we in the United States want. They’ll meet us on a bridge and” hand them over “and we’ll say thank you and adios. Renditions, they’re not” chock-full “of due process.”
DeGabrielle: “If the United States wants to prosecute Julian Assange, I rather suspect there will be an extradition hearing, and it will get done.”
Adler joked that with a criminal defense attorney background and a TV photographer background, he [Adler himself] must be very conflicted about WikiLeaks.
Adler: “I can tell you with the contact I maintain with my friends who are intelligence officers that people have been affected by this. Careers have been destroyed in the foreign ministries. You can imagine what your boss would do if he found out what you really think about him. Lives have been devastated by this. I’m not aware of anyone having been killed, but to say that no one has been hurt — I don’t agree with that. It comes down to your responsibility to your fellow human being. I understand the concept of leaking, and frankly, I’m in favor of it; the government makes a lot of mistakes […] but people are at the heart of the” issue. “My problem with Mr. Assange is, I think Mr. Assange wants the story to be about Mr. Assange. For whatever reason Assange chose not to” redact sufficiently “but being anti-war and still being willing to risk their safety [i.e. safety of informants] — it seems to be a contradiction to me. Even Mr. Robertson said” about Sierra Leone “he was very concerned about sources coming forward with information and being killed.” [I didn’t hear clearly the part where Robertsont brought up Sierra Leone; that’s why it’s not included above. — DAL]
Adler: “There are tremendous parallels between being an intelligence officer and being a journalist. Mr. Assange’s method does more to endanger journalists. I think you go to the government and say, ‘We’re going to do this, but what do you have to say?’ It is the moral thing to do, but it also has a practical effect: [it makes it] less likely that the government is going to come after you. So just to willy-nilly throw yourself out there with these documents, I think, was a very unfortunate difference.”
Adler: “There is some value” in the WikiLeaks documents. “And I think there’s some deterrence value in having government employees concerned someone’s going to leak their misdeeds. Mr. Schmitt mentioned this CIA officer Kiriakou who was indicted just this past week. The similarity between his case and Mr. Assange’s case is he also wanted to be the center of the story.” Kiriakou “was clearly enjoying the publicity. By the same token, he could have done it the way that got the information out” without getting his name all in the press. “As a CIA officer we were very wary of sources who wanted to be the story. Number one, the information may be suspect. But number two, you may end up being clients of Don and myself. Look for the good information, publicize it when you think it’s appropriate, but do it in the appropriate manner. I don’t think disclosing the names in many of the instances is” the right way to do it.
Forestier: “One of the comments that Mr. Robertson made that I found to be very intriguing is whether or not the government needs to do a better job of keeping its secrets secret.”
DeGabrielle: There was the “Vanessa Leggett matter where a subpoena ‘was issued to someone who called herself a journalist. She was writing a book; she recorded a conversation in secret.” [DeGabrielle said more about this Leggett matter, but I couldn’t transcribe it quickly enough since I wasn’t familiar with the case. — DAL]
DeGabrielle: “Don’t think if you’re using a cell phone that the government doesn’t know what is going on.”
DeGabrielle: “I agree it’s a responsibility of the government to maintain the confidentiality it is swearing people into” [I missed the rest of this –DAL]
Forestier: “Lucy, can you share with us about the Valerie Plame affair?”
Dalglish: “Okay, that’s like my least favorite case of all time. You know, the parallels, I can’t draw too many parallels to that case because the Plame case was a situation where there was a lot of debate over whether yellow cake uranium, I think, was being gathered by Iranians. A columnist by the name of Robert Novak wrote a column” in which “he identified, in a kind of offhand way, that the former ambassador they sent to Niger was married to a CIA employee named Valerie Plame. The mention was almost gratuitous. In that particular case, I would distinguish them by saying the WikiLeaks case is a matter of the national intelligence agencies sitting down and being very, very concerned and having a kind of meltdown over the damage that could be done with the government. With the Plame case there is far more politics […] there was Scooter Libby, Karl Rove […] and multiple reporters involved in all of it; there were political columnists involved in all of it […] There just weren’t all that many similarities. Did the release of Valerie Plame’s name do incredible damage to her career? Yeah, it did. To this day I don’t understand why publishing her name was necessary.”
Adler: “From my years in the” intelligence community / CIA … When “someone in the family breaches that trust,” the family is “beyond furious. It’s like your wife or husband cheating on you; you’re that angry. With someone who’s made a member of ‘the Brotherhood,’ let’s say, would turn it around to get their name out there and risk people out there […] I think Obama has prosecuted six of these cases […] I don’t think it’s a decision made in the White House, I think it’s people in the national security agencies saying shut this down, it’s getting out of hand.” [Dalglish nodding her head.] “Manning and Drake will be the subject of CIA training videos. Although I agree the Plame thing was politically motivated because Joe Wilson, the ambassador who was sent over there, was a Clinton appointee.”
Dalglish: “Reporters were calling me and saying, ‘Doesn’t this Plame affair have a chilling effect on reporters?’ And I’d say, ‘Don’t you think that’s the point? Yeah.'”
Dalglish: “Mostly” protection for sources “involves staying off the phones, acting more like a CIA operative.” Your airline tickets and more are being tracked. “They are trying to track people who are leakers.” The government “will kind of ‘go back’ and look for the connections with the reporters who did the stories. It is kind of a lesson from the Plame-Cooper-Liddy-Rove case, and this is, when you’re communicating on your employer-owned communication devices, your employer is going to take the position that that information and that product belongs to them. And under the law that is probably true. So as Matt Cooper found out, after he fought the subpoena” TIME Magazine lost, and someone at TIME “thought he had the duty to turn it over. So TIME Magazine turned it over. So that’s another thing you guys have to pay very careful attention to. So Eric I’m sure knows all of this, and the NYT and David McCraw know all of this, and they’ve probably told everybody these things. Basically, stay off technology if you have somebody you seriously need to protect, particularly if they are in the national security world.”
DeGabrielle: “In the U.S. Attorney’s office, email is referred to as ‘evidence mail.’ We hear about horror stories of people who’ve said certain things in email, and they still don’t think about it, the confidentiality of the employees at a company, or even among the government. Electronic information is just cascading […] I think we’re going to have to redo some of the laws. This generation thinks there’s instant access to anything, so what’s the harm in reading something WikiLeaks has divulged? I would like to see” the matter raised: “does the public really need to know? Or are these salacious details that people would just like to hear about? Frankly, the people who are the decision-makers now are a bunch of dinosaurs who didn’t grow up with this, so they’re basing information on outdated information about what’s out there […] Everything is going to be available to everybody. I think David pointed out, and I think Lucy has said it as well, that the government probably classifies too much, and you get” agencies “that protect their turf. In a perfect world we’d have a super classification agency, one kind of ‘pinnacle’ that’d understand what it takes to get something classified. However, that’s impractical. No single group […] is going to be able to make that call.” The government “needs to think more in a sober fashion before they put that stamp on their confidential or their top secret or whatever it happens to be and think about it before the stamp goes down and why.”
Adler: “I gave a talk a while back to some civil lawyers titled ‘Delete Doesn’t.’ So not only should you not communicate” via technology, “but you shouldn’t think deleting” is sufficient. “Forensic people” who work for the intelligence agencies “are spectacular.”
Adler: “A quick story that illustrates how bizarre the government is with classifying things. When I was with the [CIA] agency, you have to put everything in your desk at night, [your] safe, lock it up. I had this friend who just had a blank piece of paper there and was stamping SECRET all over it [for fun]. When I got back the next day, there was the equivalent of a CIA speeding ticket on my desk! And the paper was blank!”
Forestier: “About post-9/11 integration of intelligence agencies to help one another … Do you want to comment on that, anyone?”
Adler: “The government bureaucracy does not — They’re not very good at the appropriate response to the problem. It’s all or nothing. After WikiLeaks they don’t want anyone to share. They swing back and forth between these extremes, and it takes a long time to work out the mechanics. I’m not surprised this Assange thing — and let’s be honest, there’s still rivalry between the FBI and the CIA, between the CIA and the State Department. ‘Those weanies over there don’t know what they’re doing, so we need not send something over there for fear it’ll make it over there to Assange.'”
Dalglish: “I can tell you that just being in Washington and talking to various people that the rage over this particular [WikiLeaks] incident, the folks I’ve spoken to, the rage seems to be mostly focused on the Pentagon. So honest to God, as an outsider who doesn’t know much about this […] it blows my mind that a twenty-two-year-old Army private with known psychological issues has access to information that two and a half million people.”
Adler: “I think that two and a half million figure is inaccurate. It’s more like 300,000 to 400,000.”
Dalglish: These groups “trying to co-ordinate publishing –” [Something I didn’t catch — DAL] “In most other parts of the world, reporters have a right to protect confidential sources, but they are subject to censorship” including in the UK. “But in the United States, they’re not going to block you from publishing unless it’s something extreme or imminent, but they do have the right under the law to come after your sources. So I would think that the publishing partners in the UK must have been apoplectic when the folks at the New York Times went to the government and said, ‘We’re about to publish it, what do you think?’ The Guardian must have been thinking, ‘Oh my God, the White House might call Downing Street” and tell them.
Schmitt (from the audience): “It did come up. The way it worked was, the lawyers got together and talked about it, and as long as the New York Times got together and talked about it, and as long as the New York Times published before the Guardian or before Der Spiegel, even if it was just a minute or two more, they were released from that obligation. By the time we got to that point, the Guardian was less concerned about the impact because the UK had realized this stuff is going to come out — it’s futile to block it.”
Adler: “That middle-ground […] It can be revealed to a journalist, but it can be done in a way that makes it difficult for Don’s old colleauges to come after you. Maybe I’ll make my fortune teaching spy tradecraft to journalists […] It may need to be journalist-source-lawyer more than it has been in the past; lawyers can’t go over the line and tell people how to break the law.” But “some of you who are at smaller outlets need to, maybe, contact Lucy’s organization and say, ‘Hey there’s this situation I’m facing; I don’t want to step on a landmine.'”
Dalglish: “There are several bills that are in Congress trying to adapt the Espionage Act. There are some significant efforts to rewrite it. I don’t think it will happen in the next few months because Congress is not doing anything at the moment.” But “they are spending a considerable amount of time on the Hill with media trying to make sure people in the media understand the government’s point of view on this particular issue.”
Conclusion.
Super Security Bros. (L to R: DeGabrielle, Schmitt, Adler)
I asked Dalglish after the panel what she thought of the argument that WikiLeaks is accountable since it depends on donations from the public. She thought the notion ridiculous and said legal accountability and financial accountability are distinct. After all, “people will buy anything.”
I asked Adler about the nascent US prosecution against Assange after the panel and he said to me one of the major issues surrounding the Assange case is whether “we [the United States] can drag his ass over here.” Obviously I don’t support that.
Second in a series of posts where I’m picking through WikiLeaksCablegate for literary topics. See my first post in the series for an important introduction, and view the entire series here. At the time of my first Literary Cablegate post (then called Literary WikiLeaks), not all of Cablegate had been published; CablegateSearch.net showed 665 hits for the search term “literature” and 334 for the term “literary”. Now that all of Cablegate has been released (a.k.a. “Cablegate2”; see my remarks on the controversy surrounding the comprehensive Cablegate publication), CablegateSearch.net shows 1,214 hits for “literature” and 403 for “literary.”
I’m going through all of them.
I’m focusing only on cables where “literature” or “literary” is used in the sense of short stories, essays, the humanities, etc. So I’m mostly ignoring cables mentioning literature as in, say, campaign literature, or the medical literature for a malady (unless the cable mentions one of Oliver Sacks‘s highly literary case studies, you see?). Given the importance of intellectual property (or lack thereof) to free speech and the Internet, copyright and copyleft issues will be included as well. Literary Cablegate blog posts will feature about 8 cables each, starting from the most recently written cable. I’ll take on the 403 cable hits for “literary” first.
Please consider tipping me through Flattr either by clicking the button at the end of a post, or clicking the Flattr tip jar button for this entire blog on the right sidebar widget. Also consider supporting WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as well as Bradley Manning.
Here we go!
The United States maintains an annual “Special 301 Report” that, in the words of the United States Trade Representative, reviews “the global state of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement” and “reflects the Administration’s resolve to encourage and maintain effective IPR protection and enforcement worldwide.” The Report lists nations perceived as threats to copyright interests. Some nations wind up on the Watch List, and others on the more severe Priority Watch List. In a cable dated February 2010, the US Embassy in La Paz said Bolivia’s laws granted powerful intellectual property rights:
the existing copyright law does protect literary, artistic, and scientific works for the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. Bolivian copyright protection includes the exclusive right to copy or reproduce works; to revise, adapt, or prepare derivative works; to distribute copies of works; and to publicly communicate works. Although the exclusive right to translate works is not explicitly granted, the law does prevent unauthorized adaptation, transformation, modification, and editing. The law also provides protection for software and databases.
Compare the Bolivian law’s extreme length of copyright (50 years) to the US Pirate Party’s intent to reduce the length of copyright to 14 years and legalize all noncommercial sharing, and to the efforts of Creative Commons.
Regardless of Bolivian law, the US Embassy noted, copyright was so laxly enforced in Bolivia that their
Video, music, and software piracy rates are among the highest in Latin America, with the International Intellectual Property Alliance estimating that piracy levels have reached 100% for motion pictures and over 90% for recorded music. There are no legal sources of audio-visual materials in most of the country, since it would be impossible to compete with pirated products prices: in the capital of La Paz there is only one store that sells legal CDs. Bootleg CDs, DVDs, computer software, pharmaceutical products, and other goods are sold on street corners and in stores across the country.
The Embassy blames the rampant piracy on Bolivia’s lack of human and financial resources to enforce copyright, and says pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to file patents in Bolivia due to fears of trade secret theft and counterfeiting. Despite all the piracy, the US Embassy suggests keeping Bolivia only on the Special 301 Report’s Watch List and not its Priority Watch List just so as not to frustrate Bolivia and thereby damage the copyright interests’ outreach efforts. In 2010 and 2011 Bolivia did remain on the ordinary Special 301 Watch List.
A February 2010 cable from Baghdad discusses the membership of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s State of Law Alliance (SLA), formed in October 2009 as, according to the cable, “a nationalist, non-sectarian political” group. The cable identifies Hassan Sunayd as one “key figure” of SLA, describing him as
SLA candidate 4 in Dhi Qar. A well-known poet and literary figure in Iraq, Sunayd has been in Da’wa’s political bureau since the late 1980’s. A member of the previous COR’s Security and Defense Committee, he is Maliki’s closest friend, one of his security advisors and liaison to the KRG leadership. Having survived physical torture during the Saddam regime, he has used his position as spokesman for the SLA to rail against the threat of resurgent Ba’athism and was critical of purported U.S. efforts to interfere in the de-Ba’athification process.
A somewhat substantial search of Google’s various resources as well as academic journals and US newspaper archives turned up no discussion of Hassan Sunayd’s literary background, with one minor exception. (Sometimes his first name is transliterated as Hasan, sometimes his last name as al-Sunayd.) According to an April 14, 2008 BBC transcript, Sunayd recited a poem at a ceremony held in Baghdad to commemorate the 28th anniversary of the martyrdom of Islamic scholar Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr. Sunayd is mentioned with some frequency as a spokesperson for the Iraqi government.
Professor Hanan Hammad at the TCU History Department told me Sunayd used the pen name “Jawad Jamil (could be Jawwad Gamil). he lived in Iran in early eights along with members of al-Da’wa Islamist Party. his sister Balqis is also a poet, but with the Communist party. nothing indicate that he’s a great poet/ intellectual.” My searches for his pen name turn up nothing.
The US State Department maintains an annual Trafficking in Persons Report to “engage foreign governments on human trafficking” and as a resource for “governmental anti-human trafficking efforts.” In a February 2010 cable, the first of three parts (part 2, part 3), the US Embassy in Paris gave its input for the tenth annual report. The cable notes “France prosecutes French nationals who travel abroad to engage in child sexual tourism” and goes on to say
Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand faced criticism during the reporting period related to his 2005 literary work, which included depictions of sexual tourism in Asia. In “The Bad Life,” Mitterrand details the experiences of an unnamed protagonist with so-called “boys” in the brothels of Thailand. Facing pressure to resign for engaging in sexual tourism before he joined the government, Minister of Culture Frederic Mitterrand stated during an October 8, 2009 television interview that he had never had sex with a minor. “Each time I was with people who were my age, or were five years younger,” the 62 year-old Mitterrand said, adding: “I condemn sexual tourism, which is a disgrace. I condemn pedophilia in which I have never participated in any way.”
The Guardian extends Miterrand’s quote a sentence: “The book is in no way an apology for sex tourism, even if one chapter is a journey through that hell, with all the fascination that hell can inspire.” The BBC termed Mitterrand’s book an “autobiographical novel” and said the scandal would have brought him down in other countries, “not because he is gay, but because there is an inconsistency between a government committed to fighting sex tourism and a minister who has been a sex tourist. But in France, where a belief in the right to privacy and a liberal view on sex are both near sacrosanct, many believe it would be hypocritical to hound Frederic Mitterrand from office.”
The cable says France prosecutes child sex tourism, and Mitterand claims he was involved with people basically his age. More importantly, the book is, autobiographically based or not, a work of fiction. How much of it is true to Mitterrand’s life is therefore hard to evaluate beyond educated guessing. Mother Jones, reviewing the book, says the French right wing targetted Mitterand by quoting the book out of context. The Mother Jones reviewer makes the book sound pretty good:
The Bad Life is a stunningly candid and beautiful book. Described by its author as an “autobiography which is half real and half dreamed,” it recounts his life as a child of privilege born into Paris’s haut bourgeois sixteenth arrondissement, his experience of homosexuality, and a number of deeply felt personal relationships. Much of this is set in a social milieu of movie stars, politicians, renowned artists, and other public figures. […]
The Bad Life is an intimate, courageous memoir in which Mitterrand is brutally honest not only about himself, but with himself. If it includes a few sordid accounts of a homosexual underworld that some would rather not be asked to consider, it does so within a larger portrait of one man’s life and desires, a nuanced collection of affecting incidents examined with an unsparing eye.
The entire scandal was complicated by Mitterrand’s defending Roman Polanski shortly beforehand, demanding the director be released after arrest in Switzerland over his US conviction for sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Yet again, the publisher calls The Bad Life a “novel inspired by autobiography.” You don’t take Philip K. Dick’s autobiographical novel VALIS as definitive proof of anything, do you? Or Dostoevsky’s The House of the Dead. Writers build off their own experience, but don’t exactly replicate it in fiction. No crime was shown here. Mitterrand is still in office.
A February 2010 cable from the Consulate Shenyang US Embassy in China noted traffic across the border between China and North Korea. “For all the talk about frozen trade between the DPRK [North Korea] and China,” the cable says, the Consulate General Office noted people crossing the border talking business and culture. For example,
At the train station many different groups of North Koreans were seen waiting to take the train up to Shenyang [China]. On board, a middle-aged North Korean female trader was reading a Sino-Korean literary journal and a Dandong business weekly.
The apparent significance for the Office is the interest North Koreans show in the Chinese, as evidenced in part by the Sino-Korean literary journal. One wonders which journal the woman was reading. In the United States, “literary journal” tends to mean a venue for highbrow literary work, as opposed to a “magazine,” which can run the gamut of literary taste classifications.
A February 2010 cable from Berlin discusses German copyright law in the context of foreign investment in Germany.
Germany is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Germany is also a party to the major international intellectual property protection agreements: the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Universal Copyright Convention, the Geneva Phonograms Convention, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Brussels Satellite Convention, and the Treaty of Rome on Neighboring Rights. […]
Germany has signed the WIPO Internet treaties and ratified them in 2003. Foreign and German rights holders, however, remain critical of provisions in the German Copyright Act that allow exceptions for private copies of copyrighted works. Most rights holder organizations regard German authorities’ enforcement of intellectual property protections as sufficient, although problems persist due to lenient court rulings in some cases and the difficulty of combating piracy of copyrighted works on the Internet.
The Berne Convention — spelled Bern or Berne — was instigated by the writer Victor Hugo in the late 19th century. It says copyright is established when the creator puts the work into fixed form, bypassing the need for registration. The Berne Convention also establishes a minimum term of 50 years after the author’s death for written works. Cory Doctorow talks a bit about the Berne Convention in this Guardian article.
A February 2010 cable from Geneva and the US Trade Representative discusses January 2010’s 7th Working Party meeting on Yemen’s Accession to the World Trade Organization, the in-progress effort to enter Yemen into the WTO. In a section about trading rights, the cable noted
The US and EU had additional concerns about certain requirements that only Yemeni nationals could be granted the technical clearance needed to import medicines, medical equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, books, newspapers, audiovisual and other artistic literary works, and requested that the Trading Rights Action Plan be updated to include information on these technical clearance requirements.
I suspect the technical clearance for Yemeni nationals who regulate the import of “artistic literary works” involves Yemen’s prohibition against the import of “Any item offensive to Muslim culture.” (Yemen’s population is 98% Muslim.) Reporters Without Borders ranks Yemen within the bottom 10 of all nations for press freedom. This might or might not be relevant: a May 25, 2009 piece in the Yemen Times by Dr. A. K. Sharma said if “a nation has to import and export not only goods and commodities but also knowledge and skills, it has got to have an army of well-equipped and professionally competent translators.” Currently Yemen isn’t a member of the WTO.
A February 2010 cable from Beijing discussing the climate for foreign investment into China notes the country is a member of the Berne Convention (discussed above).
Another February cable discussing the climate for foreign investment, this time from the Colombo embassy, notes Sri Lanka is a party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (discussed above). Original literary works are protected under a 2003 Sri Lanka copyright law that was “intended to meet both U.S.-Sri Lanka bilateral IPR agreement and TRIPS obligations to a great extent.” In a January 2003 article for Daily Variety, an entertainment-industry trade magazine, Bryan Pearson said the new law aimed to crack down on piracy; pirating software was “not illegal in Sri Lanka,” Pearson wrote, and the island was a “paradise for fraudulent imports.”
Rhode Island Representative Daniel P. Gordon, Jr. (Twitter), also known as Rep. Dan Gordon and DiverDan, has drawn interest in the last week for using slogans adopted by the decentralized hacker collective Anonymous (see QuinnNorton‘s series on Anonymous at Wired to catch up on them: Parts 12 and more forthcoming). His tweet that initially brought him to the attention of the hivemind was this one against NDAA (the legislation, signed by Obama in the last week, that permits endless US military detention of anyone anywhere without trial based on secret evidence; more from the ACLU):
AnonyOps, one of the most influential Anonymous Twitter accounts, appreciated the representative’s remarks:
He’s taken backroom politics public and taunted at least one fellow Congressperson.
Rep. Gordon opened up a tinychat this evening and, over Twitter, invited people in. The chat session was planned a little earlier by Rep. Gordon and Anon1781.
I managed to jump into the chat and log it; below I’ve pasted two versions of the log: first, an excerpted version edited a little for readability, and second, the whole thing unaltered. The chat mostly took the form of a conversation between Guy Fawkes mask-clad Anon1781 and Rep. Dan Gordon, who played DJ, selecting, among other songs, Rage Against the Machine’s “Bombtrack” and Corrosion of Conformity’s “Vote with a Bullet.”
Highlights from the chat:
Rep. Gordon said he planned to participate in #Jan17, which is Occupy Wall Street’s date to Occupy Congress; when I pressed him on his plans, he didn’t give details, citing “many enemies” and the need for “OpSec” (operational security).
He said “Political campaigns should be publically funded at a set amount”; I asked him what he thought of @USDOR’s 1 vote, 1 campaign donation dollar per citizen idea. He found it “interesting” and said he’d research it.
He called Lincoln “the worst President ever.”
His ultimate political goal, he said, is to raise awareness for the people.
He promised future chats with Anonymous and other netizens, perhaps over Ustream.
The positive part of this, I think, is that it might be the beginning of public officials, particularly local- or state-level ones, engaging or even collaborating with hardcore netizens, Occupiers, and hackers in an open way. That’s a big maybe, but who knows? Life isn’t going to get any less weird.
Here’s a screenshot to give you a feel for the chat’s vibe. Yes, those are Free Topiary graphics. Rep. Gordon didn’t appear on video.
Excerpted log, edited a little for readability (complete log farther down):
[6:53 PM] douglaslucas: Hi Rep Dan, this is @douglaslucas from Twitter.
[6:53 PM] repdan: Hi Doug!
[6:54 PM] douglaslucas: When did you first begin to use Anonymous & net-culture slogans as a public official?
[6:55 PM] repdan: Just this past week, or so. Outstanding network of social media freedom lovers.
[6:55 PM] moose_mario: hey repdan
[6:55 PM] moose_mario: what the hell is wrong with the ri gop
[6:56 PM] moose_mario: and whats with all this movement to close all the voting
[6:56 PM] repdan: Hiya Moose. The RIGOP is apparently a disfunctional group of ‘climbers’ that care not abou
[6:56 PM] repdan: You in RI, Moose?
[6:57 PM] moose_mario: yes
[6:57 PM] repdan: Who is ur Rep. Moose?
[6:58 PM] moose_mario: providence so i guess ciciline
[6:58 PM] repdan: State Rep, Moose. Cicilline is US Congressman, sir.
[7:00 PM] moose_mario: well then i have no idea
[7:01 PM] repdan: NP. Stand by and I’ll show u where to go to find out, k?
[7:05 PM] repdan: Garbage govt web sites…still looking. Hold on…
[7:05 PM] douglaslucas: Which things about net culture & Anonymous make ya identify them as freedom lovers?
[7:07 PM] repdan: Hello anon1781!
[7:09 PM] repdan: Here you go, Moose. https://sos.ri.gov/vic/
[7:09 PM] anon1781: diverdan you there?
[7:09 PM] repdan: Right here, 1781.
[7:12 PM] repdan: 1st time hosting. Tips welcome.
[7:12 PM] anon1781: pretty easy shit, nothing to it really
[7:12 PM] anon1781: alrighty my question before
[7:12 PM] anon1781: money freespeech
[7:12 PM] anon1781: bastardizing what lobbying is supposed to be
[7:12 PM] anon1781: opinion
[7:13 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:15 PM] repdan: Political campaigns should be publically funded at a set amount, in my opinion.
[7:15 PM] anon1781: difine set amount
[7:15 PM] anon1781: define*
[7:16 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: What do you think of @USDOR’s 1 vote, 1 campaign donation dollar per citizen idea?
[7:16 PM] anon1781: repdan = diverdan = Rep RI Dan Gordon
[7:16 PM] repdan: @douglaslucas Interesting idea. Will research!
[7:17 PM] anon1781: you mentioned before you distaste for the reactions you got of idgaf when talking about
[7:17 PM] anon1781: ndaa with other reps and such, mind describing more?
[7:17 PM] repdan: what do you guys want to listen to for tunes?
[7:17 PM] repdan: @1781..typing…
[7:18 PM] douglaslucas: Rage Against the Machine works for me!
[7:18 PM] repdan: @1781…Apathy, not even aware at the state level of #NDAA….
[7:19 PM] moose_mario: ohh gordon fox
[7:19 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:19 PM] anon1781: dan, if you can, turn on cam, so they stop thinking i’m you lol
[7:19 PM] repdan: CoC, then Black Flag
[7:19 PM] moose_mario: rep dan gordon fox.
[7:20 PM] repdan: @1781. No cam 2nite, bro! But you are a good rep for ANON!
[7:21 PM] repdan: CoC…”Vote with a Bullet”
[7:21 PM] repdan: The People are so apethetic in this state.
[7:22 PM] anon1781: Have you gotten any beef yet for even talking to us?
[7:22 PM] repdan: One Party rule for 74 years….
[7:22 PM] repdan: @1781. No, but I’m sure that folks are watching. No worries here.
[7:23 PM] anon1781: my state, every fucking senator and congressman voted yes on ndaa -.-
[7:23 PM] anon1781: cept one, which shocked me
[7:23 PM] anon1781: the only demo in either lol, again shocked me
[7:23 PM] repdan: One party rule has rusulted in disaster…RI is bottom of barrel in most aspects.
[7:23 PM] diabloanon: pretty much the same here, even people I never thought would support it, voted for it
[7:24 PM] anon1781: i’m scheming my schemes :P
[7:24 PM] repdan: Roger that, 1781. MMN feeling better?
[7:24 PM] anon1781: he was sick?
[7:24 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan do you know MMN?
[7:25 PM] repdan: @Moose. Roger that. He is also Speaker of the House. Send him email or call him.
[7:25 PM] cruzaders1: 1781 you know what i like about the south
[7:25 PM] cruzaders1: all the gun vaults you see everywhere.lolz
[7:25 PM] anon1781: MMN = MotorMouthNews :P
[7:25 PM] anon1781: who’s the other MMN you were talking about? lol
[7:26 PM] anon1781: guns are crucial here, so many rednecks, love them, they gonna be on front line
[7:26 PM] anon1781: if civil war breaks out lol
[7:26 PM] anon1781: mad respect for the rednecks now
[7:26 PM] repdan: @1781 Flu, I believe. Was in hospital the other day.
[7:26 PM] cruzaders1: i dont think the war ever ended. the north sought strong fed govern and still do
[7:27 PM] cruzaders1: both lincoln and obmama were illinios sentors, comeing from chicgo ” organized gang/crime”
[7:27 PM] anon1781: my governor is one of the top 5 lobbyists in the US -.-
[7:27 PM] repdan: Lincoln was the worst President ever..false that it was about slavery…
[7:27 PM] anon1781: i dunno about worst, but i do believe history is MUCH more interesting, when you don’t
[7:27 PM] anon1781: learn it from a text book
[7:28 PM] anon1781: it’s like a fucking soap opera
[7:28 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:29 PM] diabloanon: ooh is that Black Flag?
[7:29 PM] cruzaders1: look, rob bovoghis got cault selling senate seats. east st louis always has voter fraud
[7:29 PM] repdan: Alright, what do yo uall want to losten too. This particular BF vid is lame.
[7:29 PM] repdan: @diablanon. Yepper.
[7:30 PM] diabloanon: I’m fine with whatever everybody else wants to listen to
[7:30 PM] anon1781: how has your first few experiences in house been? boring? do you feel like your doing
[7:30 PM] anon1781: something useful?
[7:31 PM] chichibonga: some tool?
[7:31 PM] repdan: Good Q’s. 1781..stand by. @Chichi Tool, YES!
[7:31 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:32 PM] chichibonga: anyone heading to dc on the 17th
[7:32 PM] anon1781: :: raises hand ::
[7:32 PM] anon1781: pitched in with about 80 peeps to get a bus
[7:32 PM] anon1781: we’re packing that bitch full
[7:32 PM] repdan: @1781 1st Experiences in the House…awful.
[7:32 PM] anon1781: how so diver?
[7:33 PM] repdan: TThought that good ideas would prevail..reason…not so.
[7:34 PM] anon1781: dan is old fart
[7:34 PM] anon1781: he types epic slow
[7:34 PM] anon1781: so if you ask questions, wait for reply :D
[7:34 PM] repdan: Fiscally sound ideas do not translate to good politics, I’ve found.
[7:34 PM] abc: لا تكن المغــرور فتنـدم ، ولا تكن الواثق فتُـصـدم . .
[7:35 PM] anon1781: sound ideas do not translate to politics lol
[7:35 PM] repdan: 1781 spends too much time typing, lol!
[7:35 PM] chichibonga: i find santorum offensive to the point i wanna kick him in the face ya hear
[7:35 PM] anon1781: santorum, looks like he’s been kicked in the face quite a bit lol
[7:36 PM] repdan: Political Q’s peeps? (Santorum=junk)
[7:36 PM] touchedbypriest: thats a dreary green wall behind you
[7:36 PM] anon1781: greenscreen :)
[7:36 PM] anon1781: useful :
[7:37 PM] anon1781: what are your overall goals for your term in office diverdan?
[7:38 PM] repdan: @1781. Raise awareness is the ultimate goal.
[7:38 PM] anon1781: with people or government lool
[7:39 PM] repdan: @1781. Both. People take priority, though
[7:39 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:40 PM] anon1781: what actions do you have planned in the near future to raise awareness?
[7:41 PM] repdan: @1781 Trying to spread word thru media to the People…it’s a challange.
[7:41 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: You’re on commission to study use of eBooks in RI schools, yes? How’s that going?
[7:41 PM] repdan: @doug. Yep on Text books.
[7:41 PM] anon1781: unless you do something, umm.. highly questionable, you won’t get much word out that way
[7:42 PM] repdan: @1781. Roger that. I think that is in work, lulz!
[7:42 PM] anon1781: :P true
[7:43 PM] cruzaders1: me and peeps are actually gonna clean trash up in towns and talk to people. we care
[7:43 PM] cruzaders1: also planning a peoples library based by donations and not taxes
[7:43 PM] repdan: Tunes,,,what next?
[7:43 PM] anon1781: if citizens wanted to put to trial government officials for treason, what route do wetake?
[7:44 PM] repdan: @1781. GREAT Q!
[7:44 PM] cruzaders1: we get signature and expect the law,courts to up hold the peoples request
[7:44 PM] cryoanon: If you want to prosecute them in the nextfew years i think your options are limited to
[7:44 PM] cryoanon: revolution
[7:44 PM] cruzaders1: if majority of americans feel that way we need to do more then speak but act
[7:44 PM] anon1781: I’m sick of fucking playing around with these asshats, shit’s gotta get serious asap
[7:45 PM] cruzaders1: no revolution, the only solution and conclusion is a resolution
[7:45 PM] repdan: Stand by….we need to do a Skype some time…so much 2 talk about.
[7:45 PM] anon1781: lol
[7:45 PM] repdan: LOL…hold on,..1787 what u want to hear?
[7:45 PM] cruzaders1: ussr was a revolution and lead to 20years economic depression, with still promblems
[7:46 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: For yr textbook commission, might RI use Creative Commons or other open materials?
[7:46 PM] cryoanon: Well i wouldn’t exactly call Russia democratic today
[7:46 PM] anon1781: Rock some FooFighters :P
[7:47 PM] repdan: fOO IT IS…STAND BY
[7:47 PM] cruzaders1: me either. thats why revolution is not the solution
[7:47 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:47 PM] anonrep: Do what do you make of recent artical’s claming the pentagon has sold infomation to
[7:47 PM] anonrep: hollywood for films that they will not release to the public
[7:48 PM] anonrep: basically selling exclusivitey right’s on infomation to hollywood
[7:47 PM] cruzaders1: but back in the 90’s the black panthers walk into congress with ak’s and none was arrest
[7:48 PM] cruzaders1: we need not to gather is groups of hundred but in hundred thousands and storm OUR building
[7:48 PM] anon1781: black panther’s get away with alot of shit lol
[7:48 PM] repdan: It’s estimated that only 3% of the pop, actively participated in American Rev. Trivia…
[7:48 PM] anon1781: i see J17 being a milestone
[7:49 PM] anon1781: or a complete dud, hope it’s the better of the two
[7:49 PM] cryoanon: It’s certainly going to get interesting
[7:49 PM] repdan: #J17 is a day to look FWD too. Also watch for #OpMindCrime.
[7:50 PM] chichibonga: i hope so i hope no one acts like a tool and ruins it or drowns out the causeu know FOX ne
[7:50 PM] anon1781: you going to be there on J17 dan?
[7:50 PM] repdan: Yepper.
[7:50 PM] anon1781: good
[7:50 PM] anon1781: and i’ve got a plan in the works for fox lol
[7:51 PM] douglaslucas: Yes to #J17, Dan?
[7:51 PM] anon1781: pretty much almost all the major news networks actually
[7:51 PM] repdan: @ Doug…Y
[7:51 PM] chichibonga: yes i hope so i hate those haters
[7:51 PM] anon1781: the plan is to have censorship bar carrying activists
[7:51 PM] anon1781: and block the view of their cameras
[7:51 PM] anon1781: and let it be covered by the people instead
[7:52 PM] anon1781: got a team of 30 so far on that, but gonna need more
[7:52 PM] repdan: Do U folks actually realize how bad it is? W/ respect….
[7:52 PM] repdan: @1781. Word
[7:52 PM] anon1781: I’d say some of us are aware, some are close, and most are far away
[7:52 PM] chichibonga: people are so apathetic –lotta dumb folks out ther
[7:53 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: What do you plan to do for #J17 ?
[7:53 PM] anon1781: it’s bad enough for me to have already bought a plane ticket to argentina, and have a
[7:53 PM] anon1781: place to stay
[7:53 PM] anon1781: if shit gets too hairy
[7:53 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:54 PM] star_gazer: i have a home in the philippines and my passport ready
[7:54 PM] anon1781: but, do tell us how bad it is from your own words
[7:54 PM] anon1781: will be interesting to hear
[7:55 PM] moose_mario: RI is pretty messed up
[7:55 PM] moose_mario: its like..decay
[7:55 PM] anon1781: MS is fucked up
[7:55 PM] anon1781: think about this, when do you ever hear anything about MS?
[7:56 PM] chichibonga: neva
[7:56 PM] anon1781: exactly lol
[7:56 PM] anon1781: so much insane shit happens
[7:56 PM] anon1781: but they have it so on lock
[7:56 PM] anon1781: nothing gets out
[7:56 PM] chichibonga: but i dont hear anything about dakota either
[7:56 PM] chichibonga: n or s
[7:56 PM] star_gazer: Oklahoma is not messed up …..yet
[7:57 PM] star_gazer: I don’t hear anything but what is going on in Oklahoma
[7:57 PM] star_gazer: unless i jump on twitter and help spread the news
[7:57 PM] star_gazer: dont hear about any states
[7:57 PM] moose_mario: well repdan in ri politics. here its a total one party stranglehold we dont even get 2 lol
[7:57 PM] moose_mario: would like to hear his experience
[7:58 PM] anon1781: tell us “how bad it is” diverdan
[7:58 PM] repdan: REAL bad… zero regard 4 the 10th Amendment…People’s apathy…
[7:59 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: What are your plans for #J17 ?
[8:00 PM] repdan: Ok….regroup…we need to do a Ustream soon for talkie
[8:00 PM] repdan: Many important Q’s…2 much typing
[8:00 PM] anon1781: ustreams is cool, just one sided
[8:01 PM] repdan: @1781. Recommendations?
[8:01 PM] anon1781: on here up to 16 people can cam and talk at once
[8:01 PM] anon1781: (maybe more, i’ve only seen up to 16
[8:01 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[8:01 PM] anon1781: but it allows for quick dialogue
[8:01 PM] repdan: Rgr that, 1781.
[8:02 PM] anon1781: next time, i’d like to make it a bit more formal
[8:02 PM] anon1781: i’ll send you a list of questions before we do it
[8:02 PM] anon1781: that i’ll be asking
[8:02 PM] anon1781: so you can prepare your answers mentally structured
[8:03 PM] repdan: Good idea 1781. I’m down. Did an interview 2day on similiar stuff.
[8:03 PM] anon1781: we plan on recording it, and posting it
[8:03 PM] anon1781: and a challenge to any other governmentals
[8:03 PM] anon1781: to do the s
[8:03 PM] anon1781: same
[8:03 PM] repdan: I welcome it, sir!
[8:04 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: who was the interview with?
[8:04 PM] repdan: Station in Nashville…stand by . I;ll get the link
[8:05 PM] repdan: They r anons from Tn…Great interview.
[8:06 PM] anon1781: cool, it’s a date, sometime next week
[8:07 PM] datoneanon: its a date?
[8:07 PM] repdan: Yepper! Date, Umadbro?
[8:07 PM] anon1781: go find ethersec lol, they
[8:07 PM] anon1781: will give ya hugs or some shit
[8:07 PM] repdan: Lulz..
[8:08 PM] repdan: Yay!
[8:08 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[8:09 PM] anon1781: alright, i’m out, tnx for this diver, will set up something better next week
[8:09 PM] anon1781: got some Ops to work on
[8:09 PM] anon1781: peace folks
[8:09 PM] repdan: Rgr that..Ty. Best
[8:10 PM] datoneanon: repdan howd you get elected as a libertarian, isnt that impossible
[8:10 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: Can you tell us any about your #J17 plans?
[8:11 PM] repdan: @Daton….ran as as an (R) w/ Libertarian leanings.
[8:12 PM] repdan: @doug. Not at the moment..many enemies…OpSec
[8:12 PM] douglaslucas: Okay.
[8:13 PM] repdan: Any other Q’s B4 I call it a night for TinyChat, peeps?
[8:13 PM] douglaslucas: Is your eBook commission considering open curriculum possibilities like creative commons?
[8:15 PM] repdan: Thank you all for participating, and giving ur input.
[8:15 PM] repdan: More formal and structured chat soon.
[8:15 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: Thanks for doing this tinychat!
[8:16 PM] repdan: My pleasure, sir.
[8:17 PM] repdan: @repdangordon on the Twitter
[8:17 PM] diabloanon: Sorry I didnt say much, I appreciate you really trying to reach out and represent your
[8:17 PM] diabloanon: constituents
[8:17 PM] repdan left the room.
Complete, unedited log:
[6:53 PM] guest-944707 changed nickname to douglaslucas
[6:53 PM] guest-944719 entered the room.
[6:53 PM] guest-944719 left the room.
[6:53 PM] douglaslucas: Hi Rep Dan, this is @douglaslucas from Twitter.
[6:53 PM] repdan: Hi Doug!
[6:54 PM] douglaslucas: When did you first begin to use Anonymous & net-culture slogans as a public official?
[6:54 PM] guest-944755 entered the room.
[6:54 PM] guest-944755 left the room.
[6:55 PM] guest-944776 entered the room.
[6:55 PM] repdan: Just this past week, or so. Outstanding network of social media freedom lovers.
[6:55 PM] guest-944776 changed nickname to moose_mario
[6:55 PM] moose_mario: hey repdan
[6:55 PM] moose_mario: what the hell is wrong with the ri gop
[6:56 PM] moose_mario: and whats with all this movement to close all the voting
[6:56 PM] repdan: Hiya Moose. The RIGOP is apparently a disfunctional group of ‘climbers’ that care not abou
[6:56 PM] repdan: You in RI, Moose?
[6:57 PM] moose_mario: yes
[6:57 PM] guest-944815 entered the room.
[6:57 PM] guest-944815 left the room.
[6:57 PM] repdan: Who is ur Rep. Moose?
[6:58 PM] moose_mario: providence so i guess ciciline
[6:58 PM] repdan: State Rep, Moose. Cicilline is US Congressman, sir.
[7:00 PM] moose_mario: well then i have no idea
[7:01 PM] repdan: NP. Stand by and I’ll show u where to go to find out, k?
[7:05 PM] repdan: Garbage govt web sites…still looking. Hold on…
[7:05 PM] douglaslucas: Which things about net culture & Anonymous make ya identify them as freedom lovers?
[7:05 PM] guest-945064 entered the room.
[7:06 PM] guest-945064 changed nickname to anon1781
[7:06 PM] anon1781: hello there
[7:06 PM] anon1781: one moment
[7:06 PM] guest-945082 entered the room.
[7:06 PM] guest-945082 changed nickname to s0usanon
[7:07 PM] moose_mario: hold on i think i found it
[7:07 PM] s0usanon left the room.
[7:07 PM] repdan: Hello anon1781!
[7:08 PM] guest-945148 entered the room.
[7:08 PM] guest-945148 left the room.
[7:08 PM] guest-945166 entered the room.
[7:08 PM] guest-945166 changed nickname to cruzaders1
[7:09 PM] repdan: Here you go, Moose. https://sos.ri.gov/vic/
[7:09 PM] cruzaders1: 1781 you still on
[7:09 PM] anon1781: yes
[7:09 PM] guest-945187 entered the room.
[7:09 PM] anon1781: diverdan you there?
[7:09 PM] cruzaders1: how you been?
[7:09 PM] repdan: Right here, 1781.
[7:10 PM] anon1781: good good, OpSpend50bucksOnCarShitCuzItsApieceOfShit successful
[7:10 PM] cruzaders1: know where mc comb use to live there
[7:10 PM] guest-945211 entered the room.
[7:10 PM] guest-945211 changed nickname to diabloanon
[7:10 PM] cruzaders1: moved away. but damnit south is something elese.lolz
[7:10 PM] anon1781: no doubt
[7:11 PM] anon1781: alrighty, i think i’m set up now
[7:11 PM] cruzaders1: so whos hosting, wheres the music?
[7:11 PM] guest-945232 entered the room.
[7:12 PM] repdan: 1st time hosting. Tips welcome.
[7:12 PM] anon1781: pretty easy shit, nothing to it really
[7:12 PM] anon1781: alrighty my question before
[7:12 PM] guest-945232 changed nickname to billrappleye
[7:12 PM] anon1781: money freespeech
[7:12 PM] anon1781: bastardizing what lobbying is supposed to be
[7:12 PM] anon1781: opinion
[7:13 PM] guest-945187 changed nickname to chichibonga
[7:13 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:13 PM] moose_mario: apparently my rep is.. 4
[7:13 PM] anon1781: lol
[7:13 PM] moose_mario: all hail 4!
[7:13 PM] anon1781: 4!
[7:13 PM] cruzaders1: sweet
[7:14 PM] cruzaders1: so whats up tonight? wonder what can do with our time?
[7:14 PM] repdan: Hiya billrappleye
[7:14 PM] billrappleye: nice mask yiou should wear that at the state house
[7:14 PM] anon1781: diverdan here promised some dialogue
[7:14 PM] anon1781: i have
[7:14 PM] anon1781: got pics
[7:15 PM] anon1781: funny shit, got kicked out of walmart with it on
[7:15 PM] cruzaders1: i need mask…thought of makeing a flour plaster one
[7:15 PM] repdan: Political campaigns should be publically funded at a set amount, in my opinion.
[7:15 PM] anon1781: but went to supreme court, senate, and house of reps with it on
[7:15 PM] anon1781: even got to sit in chairman’s chair with it
[7:15 PM] anon1781: difine set amount
[7:15 PM] anon1781: define*
[7:15 PM] repdan: Not my mask, billrappleye.
[7:16 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: What do you think of @USDOR’s 1 vote, 1 campaign donation dollar per citizen idea?
[7:16 PM] guest-945343 entered the room.
[7:16 PM] anon1781: repdan = diverdan = Rep RI Dan Gordon
[7:16 PM] guest-945343 changed nickname to kg
[7:16 PM] guest-945355 entered the room.
[7:16 PM] repdan: @douglaslucas Interesting idea. Will research!
[7:17 PM] guest-945355 left the room.
[7:17 PM] anon1781: you mentioned before you distaste for the reactions you got of idgaf when talking about
[7:17 PM] anon1781: ndaa with other reps and such, mind describing more?
[7:17 PM] repdan: what do you guys want to listen to for tunes?
[7:17 PM] repdan: @1781..typing…
[7:18 PM] anon1781: :P
[7:18 PM] douglaslucas: Rage Against the Machine works for me!
[7:18 PM] kg: Yes!
[7:18 PM] repdan: @1781…Apathy, not even aware at the state level of #NDAA….
[7:19 PM] moose_mario: ohh gordon fox
[7:19 PM] anon1781: @cruz, bug MMN to get his ass in here lol
[7:19 PM] cruzaders1: you got any black flag- my war
[7:19 PM] guest-945451 entered the room.
[7:19 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:19 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:19 PM] anon1781: dan, if you can, turn on cam, so they stop thinking i’m you lol
[7:19 PM] cruzaders1: r even online right now?
[7:19 PM] repdan: CoC, then Black Flag
[7:19 PM] moose_mario: rep dan gordon fox.
[7:19 PM] anon1781: MMN is always online
[7:20 PM] cruzaders1: lolz. i shout at him
[7:20 PM] anon1781: kilgoar wanted to witness this too he said last night
[7:20 PM] guest-945451 changed nickname to 6042
[7:20 PM] anon1781: but, i was too lazy to get contacts from him lol
[7:20 PM] repdan: @1781. No cam 2nite, bro! But you are a good rep for ANON!
[7:21 PM] repdan: CoC…”Vote with a Bullet”
[7:21 PM] kg left the room.
[7:21 PM] repdan: The People are so apethetic in this state.
[7:21 PM] guest-945577 entered the room.
[7:22 PM] anon1781: Have you gotten any beef yet for even talking to us?
[7:22 PM] repdan: One Party rule for 74 years….
[7:22 PM] repdan: @1781. No, but I’m sure that folks are watching. No worries here.
[7:23 PM] anon1781: my state, every fucking senator and congressman voted yes on ndaa -.-
[7:23 PM] repdan: One party rule has rusulted in disaster…RI is bottom of barrel in most aspects.
[7:23 PM] anon1781: cept one, which shocked me
[7:23 PM] anon1781: the only demo in either lol, again shocked me
[7:23 PM] diabloanon: pretty much the same here, even people I never thought would support it, voted for it
[7:24 PM] anon1781: i’m scheming my schemes :P
[7:24 PM] repdan: Roger that, 1781. MMN feeling better?
[7:24 PM] anon1781: he was sick?
[7:24 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan do you know MMN?
[7:25 PM] cruzaders1: 1781 you know what i like about the south
[7:25 PM] repdan: @Moose. Roger that. He is also Speaker of the House. Send him email or call him.
[7:25 PM] anon1781: >.>
[7:25 PM] anon1781: lolol
[7:25 PM] cruzaders1: all the gun vaults you see everywhere.lolz
[7:25 PM] anon1781: MMN = MotorMouthNews :P
[7:25 PM] anon1781: who’s the other MMN you were talking about? lol
[7:25 PM] guest-945694 entered the room.
[7:26 PM] anon1781: guns are crucial here, so many rednecks, love them, they gonna be on front line
[7:26 PM] anon1781: if civil war breaks out lol
[7:26 PM] repdan: @1781 Flu, I believe. Was in hospital the other day.
[7:26 PM] anon1781: mad respect for the rednecks now
[7:26 PM] cruzaders1: i dont think the war ever ended. the north sought strong fed govern and still do
[7:27 PM] guest-945694 left the room.
[7:27 PM] anon1781: my governor is one of the top 5 lobbyists in the US -.-
[7:27 PM] repdan: Lincoln was the worst President ever..false that it was about slavery…
[7:27 PM] cruzaders1: both lincoln and obmama were illinios sentors, comeing from chicgo ” organized gang/crime”
[7:27 PM] anon1781: i dunno about worst, but i do believe history is MUCH more interesting, when you don’t
[7:27 PM] anon1781: learn it from a text book
[7:28 PM] anon1781: it’s like a fucking soap opera
[7:28 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:28 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:28 PM] moose_mario left the room.
[7:28 PM] cruzaders1: I personally think chicgo is controlling the countrie
[7:29 PM] diabloanon: ooh is that Black Flag?
[7:29 PM] cruzaders1: look, rob bovoghis got cault selling senate seats. east st louis always has voter fraud
[7:29 PM] repdan: Alright, what do yo uall want to losten too. This particular BF vid is lame.
[7:29 PM] repdan: @diablanon. Yepper.
[7:30 PM] diabloanon: I’m fine with whatever everybody else wants to listen to
[7:30 PM] guest-945790 entered the room.
[7:30 PM] cruzaders1: play some smashing pumkins
[7:30 PM] guest-945790 left the room.
[7:30 PM] anon1781: how has your first few experiences in house been? boring? do you feel like your doing
[7:30 PM] anon1781: something useful?
[7:31 PM] diabloanon left the room.
[7:31 PM] chichibonga: some tool?
[7:31 PM] repdan: Good Q’s. 1781..stand by. @Chichi Tool, YES!
[7:31 PM] cruzaders1: anyone like to read
[7:31 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:31 PM] guest-945829 entered the room.
[7:32 PM] guest-945829 changed nickname to motormouthnews
[7:32 PM] chichibonga: anyone heading to dc on the 17th
[7:32 PM] anon1781: :: raises hand ::
[7:32 PM] guest-945838 entered the room.
[7:32 PM] anon1781: pitched in with about 80 peeps to get a bus
[7:32 PM] repdan: @1781 1st Experiences in the House…awful.
[7:32 PM] cruzaders1: got a good collection of the poor james bond
[7:32 PM] anon1781: we’re packing that bitch full
[7:32 PM] anon1781: how so diver?
[7:32 PM] chichibonga: very nice a bus-debating drive or train
[7:33 PM] guest-945853 entered the room.
[7:33 PM] repdan: TThought that good ideas would prevail..reason…not so.
[7:33 PM] motormouthnews: sup sup
[7:33 PM] guest-945853 changed nickname to abc
[7:33 PM] repdan: Hey MMN!
[7:33 PM] guest-945868 entered the room.
[7:33 PM] guest-945868 changed nickname to diabloanon
[7:33 PM] motormouthnews: hows all
[7:33 PM] anon1781: hey bro
[7:33 PM] diabloanon: hey MMN
[7:33 PM] motormouthnews: sup
[7:33 PM] chichibonga: i love the guy fawkes mask its my pic on FB
[7:33 PM] guest-945877 entered the room.
[7:34 PM] guest-945889 entered the room.
[7:34 PM] anon1781: dan is old fart
[7:34 PM] guest-945889 changed nickname to touchedbypriest
[7:34 PM] anon1781: he types epic slow
[7:34 PM] chichibonga: hahah
[7:34 PM] guest-945895 entered the room.
[7:34 PM] repdan: Fiscally sound ideas do not translate to good politics, I’ve found.
[7:34 PM] abc: لا تكن المغــرور فتنـدم ، ولا تكن الواثق فتُـصـدم . .
anon1781: so if you ask questions, wait for reply :D
[7:34 PM] guest-945898 entered the room.
[7:34 PM] 6042 left the room.
[7:35 PM] touchedbypriest: this place is bumpin’
[7:35 PM] anon1781: sound ideas do not translate to politics lol
[7:35 PM] guest-945895 changed nickname to dallison281
[7:35 PM] repdan: 1781 spends too much time typing, lol!
[7:35 PM] guest-945877 changed nickname to protocol
[7:35 PM] chichibonga: i find santorum offensive to the point i wanna kick him in the face ya hear
[7:35 PM] protocol: supppppppppppp
[7:35 PM] guest-945898 left the room.
[7:35 PM] guest-945919 entered the room.
[7:35 PM] touchedbypriest: joined the group whiteboard.
[7:35 PM] motormouthnews: sup
[7:35 PM] guest-945931 entered the room.
[7:35 PM] abc left the room.
[7:35 PM] guest-945919 changed nickname to motormouth
[7:35 PM] anon1781: santorum, looks like he’s been kicked in the face quite a bit lol
[7:35 PM] motormouth: how is everyone
[7:35 PM] guest-945943 entered the room.
[7:35 PM] motormouthnews: lol
[7:36 PM] guest-945943 changed nickname to anonrep
[7:36 PM] motormouthnews: you cant be meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[7:36 PM] anon1781: i was wondering how long it would take for a troll :D yay!
[7:36 PM] chichibonga: with those thin lips– and that whiny nasal voice
[7:36 PM] motormouth: I’m not, you must me my news arm.
[7:36 PM] repdan: Political Q’s peeps? (Santorum=junk)
[7:36 PM] protocol left the room.
[7:36 PM] anonrep: hello
[7:36 PM] guest-945931 left the room.
[7:36 PM] anon1781: lol
[7:36 PM] chichibonga: santorum frothy
[7:36 PM] touchedbypriest: thats a dreary green wall behind you
[7:36 PM] anon1781: greenscreen :)
[7:36 PM] anon1781: useful :
[7:36 PM] touchedbypriest: ahhh
[7:36 PM] anon1781: ^_^
[7:36 PM] motormouthnews: i was touchedbyapriest once
[7:37 PM] motormouthnews: then i became atheist
[7:37 PM] touchedbypriest: lol
[7:37 PM] guest-945973 entered the room.
[7:37 PM] guest-945973 changed nickname to cryoanon
[7:37 PM] guest-945838 changed nickname to kazeno_p
[7:37 PM] touchedbypriest: you know kids .. cant keep their mouths shut
[7:37 PM] chichibonga: musta been a bad touch
[7:37 PM] kazeno_p: I can haz destroy planet earth?
[7:37 PM] anon1781: what are your overall goals for your term in office diverdan?
[7:37 PM] motormouth: Follow me on twitter @motormouthnews
[7:37 PM] guest-945976 entered the room.
[7:38 PM] guest-945976 changed nickname to k
[7:38 PM] kazeno_p: Hi there DanGordon Sama! D:
[7:38 PM] kazeno_p: /me licks Rep Dan Gordon
[7:38 PM] touchedbypriest: need some tunes or boobs
[7:38 PM] anon1781: tits/tunes rock it
[7:38 PM] repdan: @1781. Raise awareness is the ultimate goal.
[7:38 PM] kazeno_p: Y u no asian? :(
[7:38 PM] anon1781: with people or government lool
[7:39 PM] kazeno_p: SHOW ME UR EYES? D:
[7:39 PM] k: anything new?
[7:39 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:39 PM] kazeno_p: omg.. my net are slow
[7:39 PM] repdan: @1781. Both. People take priority, though
[7:39 PM] anon1781: learn2net kaz
[7:40 PM] chichibonga: fucking traveler ad keeps cumin up
[7:40 PM] anon1781: what actions do you have planned in the near future to raise awareness?
[7:40 PM] cruzaders1: who knows how to telnet?
[7:40 PM] chichibonga: love sublime
[7:40 PM] kazeno_p: i dunno how to net trollolol
[7:40 PM] cryoanon: And now 4 some boobs
[7:40 PM] repdan: @billrappleye What r u up 2 2nite?
[7:40 PM] cruzaders1: fun anyone later?
[7:40 PM] anon1781: ty cryo
[7:40 PM] anon1781: marry me
[7:40 PM] guest-946051 entered the room.
[7:41 PM] guest-946051 changed nickname to moose_mario
[7:41 PM] anon1781: tits + tunes
[7:41 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: You’re on commission to study use of eBooks in RI schools, yes? How’s that going?
[7:41 PM] repdan: @1781 Trying to spread word thru media to the People…it’s a challange.
[7:41 PM] k left the room.
[7:41 PM] kazeno_p: cruzaders1: i know. is that like some epic game that goes with netcat?
[7:41 PM] cryoanon: What color shall we go with?
[7:41 PM] cruzaders1: you know be great idea. set this video chat up but with doodle like yahoo
[7:41 PM] cruzaders1: could interact and share things
[7:41 PM] repdan: @doug. Yep on Text books.
[7:41 PM] kazeno_p: i’m not from the us. HALP.
[7:41 PM] anon1781: unless you do something, umm.. highly questionable, you won’t get much word out that way
[7:42 PM] guest-946090 entered the room.
[7:42 PM] cruzaders1: telnet, its dos… research and educate
[7:42 PM] repdan: @1781. Roger that. I think that is in work, lulz!
[7:42 PM] anon1781: :P true
[7:42 PM] chichibonga: whos trollinhg
[7:43 PM] cruzaders1: me and peeps are actually gonna clean trash up in towns and talk to people. we care
[7:43 PM] kazeno_p left the room.
[7:43 PM] anon1781: if citizens wanted to put to trial government officials for treason, what route do wetake?
[7:43 PM] anon1781: ^_^
[7:43 PM] repdan: Tunes,,,what next?
[7:43 PM] cruzaders1: also planning a peoples library based by donations and not taxes
[7:43 PM] anonrep: good question anon
[7:44 PM] repdan: @1781. GREAT Q!
[7:44 PM] chichibonga: halesto
[7:44 PM] cruzaders1: we get signature and expect the law,courts to up hold the peoples request
[7:44 PM] cryoanon: If you want to prosecute them in the nextfew years i think your options are limited to
[7:44 PM] cryoanon: revolution
[7:44 PM] billrappleye: joined the group whiteboard.
[7:44 PM] cruzaders1: if majority of americans feel that way we need to do more then speak but act
[7:44 PM] anon1781: I’m sick of fucking playing around with these asshats, shit’s gotta get serious asap
[7:45 PM] cruzaders1: no revolution, the only solution and conclusion is a resolution
[7:45 PM] repdan: Stand by….we need to do a Skype some time…so much 2 talk about.
[7:45 PM] anon1781: lol
[7:45 PM] repdan: LOL…hold on,..1787 what u want to hear?
[7:45 PM] cruzaders1: ussr was a revolution and lead to 20years economic depression, with still promblems
[7:45 PM] motormouthnews: 1787?
[7:46 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: For yr textbook commission, might RI use Creative Commons or other open materials?
[7:46 PM] cryoanon: Well i wouldn’t exactly call Russia democratic today
[7:46 PM] motormouth left the room.
[7:46 PM] guest-946204 entered the room.
[7:46 PM] guest-946090 changed nickname to eman
[7:46 PM] anon1781: Rock some FooFighters :P
[7:46 PM] guest-946204 changed nickname to youranonnews
[7:47 PM] repdan: fOO IT IS…STAND BY
[7:47 PM] youranonnews: please vote for us: http://shortyawards.com/?category=activism&screen_name=youranonnews
[7:47 PM] cruzaders1: me either. thats why revolution is not the solution
[7:47 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:47 PM] anonrep: Do what do you make of recent artical’s claming the pentagon has sold infomation to
[7:47 PM] cruzaders1: but back in the 90’s the black panthers walk into congress with ak’s and none was arrest
[7:47 PM] anonrep: hollywood for films that they will not release to the public
[7:48 PM] cruzaders1: we need not to gather is groups of hundred but in hundred thousands and storm OUR building
[7:48 PM] anon1781: black panther’s get away with alot of shit lol
[7:48 PM] chichibonga: foo fighters always works
[7:48 PM] anonrep: basically selling exclusivitey right’s on infomation to hollywood
[7:48 PM] repdan: It’s estimated that only 3% of the pop, actively participated in American Rev. Trivia…
[7:48 PM] guest-945577 left the room.
[7:48 PM] chichibonga: i love dave grohl
[7:48 PM] anon1781: i see J17 being a milestone
[7:49 PM] anon1781: or a complete dud, hope it’s the better of the two
[7:49 PM] eman left the room.
[7:49 PM] cryoanon: It’s certainly going to get interesting
[7:49 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: For yr textbook commission, might RI use Creative Commons or other open materials?
[7:49 PM] guest-946285 entered the room.
[7:49 PM] repdan: #J17 is a day to look FWD too. Also watch for #OpMindCrime.
[7:49 PM] guest-946285 changed nickname to thaliecat
[7:49 PM] thaliecat left the room.
[7:49 PM] guest-946300 entered the room.
[7:50 PM] guest-946300 changed nickname to star_gazer
[7:50 PM] chichibonga: i hope so i hope no one acts like a tool and ruins it or drowns out the causeu know FOX ne
[7:50 PM] anon1781: you going to be there on J17 dan?
[7:50 PM] repdan: Yepper.
[7:50 PM] anon1781: good
[7:50 PM] anon1781: and i’ve got a plan in the works for fox lol
[7:51 PM] douglaslucas: Yes to #J17, Dan?
[7:51 PM] anon1781: pretty much almost all the major news networks actually
[7:51 PM] repdan: @ Doug…Y
[7:51 PM] chichibonga: yes i hope so i hate those haters
[7:51 PM] anon1781: the plan is to have censorship bar carrying activists
[7:51 PM] anon1781: and block the view of their cameras
[7:51 PM] anon1781: and let it be covered by the people instead
[7:52 PM] anon1781: got a team of 30 so far on that, but gonna need more
[7:52 PM] repdan: Do U folks actually realize how bad it is? W/ respect….
[7:52 PM] chichibonga: hahaha cool
[7:52 PM] chichibonga: i dont thinks so–
[7:52 PM] repdan: @1781. Word
[7:52 PM] anon1781: I’d say some of us are aware, some are close, and most are far away
[7:52 PM] chichibonga: people are so apathetic –lotta dumb folks out ther
[7:53 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: What do you plan to do for #J17 ?
[7:53 PM] anon1781: it’s bad enough for me to have already bought a plane ticket to argentina, and have a
[7:53 PM] anon1781: place to stay
[7:53 PM] chichibonga: I love in philly –they are so bad here no one has a clue
[7:53 PM] anon1781: if shit gets too hairy
[7:53 PM] chichibonga: live in philly
[7:53 PM] motormouthnews left the room.
[7:53 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:53 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[7:54 PM] repdan: brb.
[7:54 PM] star_gazer: i have a home in the philippines and my passport ready
[7:54 PM] anon1781: but, do tell us how bad it is from your own words
[7:54 PM] anon1781: will be interesting to hear
[7:54 PM] touchedbypriest: yanahmean
[7:54 PM] chichibonga: i like big butts and i camnot lie u other fellas can deny!!
[7:55 PM] chichibonga: haaha some mix here
[7:55 PM] moose_mario: RI is pretty messed up
[7:55 PM] anon1781: MS is fucked up
[7:55 PM] moose_mario: its like..decay
[7:55 PM] anon1781: think about this, when do you ever hear anything about MS?
[7:55 PM] touchedbypriest left the room.
[7:56 PM] chichibonga: neva
[7:56 PM] anon1781: exactly lol
[7:56 PM] anon1781: so much insane shit happens
[7:56 PM] anon1781: but they have it so on lock
[7:56 PM] anon1781: nothing gets out
[7:56 PM] chichibonga: but i dont hear anything about dakota either
[7:56 PM] star_gazer: Oklahoma is not messed up …..yet
[7:56 PM] chichibonga: n or s
[7:57 PM] star_gazer: I don’t hear anything but what is going on in Oklahoma
[7:57 PM] star_gazer: unless i jump on twitter and help spread the news
[7:57 PM] star_gazer: dont hear about any states
[7:57 PM] moose_mario: well repdan in ri politics. here its a total one party stranglehold we dont even get 2 lol
[7:57 PM] repdan: ok…BACK NOW
[7:57 PM] moose_mario: would like to hear his experience
[7:58 PM] anon1781: tell us “how bad it is” diverdan
[7:58 PM] moose_mario: ^^
[7:58 PM] anonrep: Anonymous: American Treason Alert
[7:58 PM] anonrep: http://ilegionnet.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/anonymous-american-treason-alert/
[7:58 PM] diabloanon: sexyfawkes lmfao
[7:58 PM] repdan: REAL bad… zero regard 4 the 10th Amendment…People’s apathy…
[7:58 PM] chichibonga: hahaha
[7:59 PM] repdan: We’ll have to do a …whoa…..boobs!
[7:59 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: What are your plans for #J17 ?
[7:59 PM] star_gazer: yall boys are easiliy distracted
[7:59 PM] chichibonga: haah
[7:59 PM] anon1781: welcome to legion?
[7:59 PM] anon1781: lol
[7:59 PM] star_gazer: lol
[7:59 PM] anon1781: cryo lol
[7:59 PM] chichibonga: ooh theres titties i got my own set so im good
[8:00 PM] star_gazer: me too
[8:00 PM] repdan: Ok….regroup…we need to do a Ustream soon for talkie
[8:00 PM] repdan: Many important Q’s…2 much typing
[8:00 PM] anon1781: ustreams is cool, just one sided
[8:00 PM] star_gazer: I need a mast stat so I can take some pics
[8:01 PM] repdan: @1781. Recommendations?
[8:01 PM] star_gazer: jokes
[8:01 PM] anon1781: on here up to 16 people can cam and talk at once
[8:01 PM] anon1781: (maybe more, i’ve only seen up to 16
[8:01 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[8:01 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[8:01 PM] anon1781: but it allows for quick dialogue
[8:01 PM] anonrep left the room.
[8:01 PM] repdan: Rgr that, 1781.
[8:02 PM] chichibonga: nice pic
[8:02 PM] anon1781: next time, i’d like to make it a bit more formal
[8:02 PM] anon1781: i’ll send you a list of questions before we do it
[8:02 PM] anon1781: that i’ll be asking
[8:02 PM] anon1781: so you can prepare your answers mentally structured
[8:03 PM] chichibonga: we neeed some prodigy–to get all radical!!!
[8:03 PM] repdan: Good idea 1781. I’m down. Did an interview 2day on similiar stuff.
[8:03 PM] anon1781: we plan on recording it, and posting it
[8:03 PM] anon1781: and a challenge to any other governmentals
[8:03 PM] anon1781: to do the s
[8:03 PM] repdan: I welcome it, sir!
[8:03 PM] anon1781: same
[8:04 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: who was the interview with?
[8:04 PM] moose_mario left the room.
[8:04 PM] guest-946666 entered the room.
[8:04 PM] repdan: Station in Nashville…stand by . I;ll get the link
n
[8:04 PM] cryoanon left the room.
[8:05 PM] repdan: They r anons from Tn…Great interview.
[8:06 PM] anon1781: cool, it’s a date, sometime next week
[8:07 PM] datoneanon: its a date?
[8:07 PM] datoneanon: :P
[8:07 PM] anon1781: jelly?
[8:07 PM] anon1781: lol
[8:07 PM] datoneanon: a lil
[8:07 PM] repdan: Yepper! Date, Umadbro?
[8:07 PM] anon1781: go find ethersec lol, they
[8:07 PM] repdan: Lulz..
[8:07 PM] anon1781: will give ya hugs or some shit
[8:08 PM] repdan: Yay!
[8:08 PM] repdan: started a YouTube-video.
[8:09 PM] anon1781: alright, i’m out, tnx for this diver, will set up something better next week
[8:09 PM] anon1781: got some Ops to work on
[8:09 PM] anon1781: peace folks
[8:09 PM] repdan: Rgr that..Ty. Best
[8:09 PM] billrappleye left the room.
[8:09 PM] star_gazer: joined the group whiteboard.
[8:10 PM] dallison281: joined the group whiteboard.
[8:10 PM] star_gazer: joined the group whiteboard.
[8:10 PM] datoneanon: repdan howd you get elected as a libertarian, isnt that impossible
[8:10 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: Can you tell us any about your #J17 plans?
[8:11 PM] datoneanon: and that
[8:11 PM] repdan: @Daton….ran as as an (R) w/ Libertarian leanings.
[8:11 PM] chichibonga left the room.
[8:12 PM] guest-946930 entered the room.
[8:12 PM] guest-946930 changed nickname to chichibonga
[8:12 PM] repdan: @doug. Not at the moment..many enemies…OpSec
[8:12 PM] douglaslucas: Okay.
[8:13 PM] chichibonga: great song o neg
[8:13 PM] repdan: Any other Q’s B4 I call it a night for TinyChat, peeps?
[8:13 PM] douglaslucas: Is your eBook commission considering open curriculum possibilities like creative commons?
[8:14 PM] chichibonga left the room.
[8:14 PM] star_gazer left the room.
[8:14 PM] datoneanon left the room.
[8:15 PM] repdan: Thank you all for participating, and giving ur input.
[8:15 PM] repdan: More formal and structured chat soon.
[8:15 PM] douglaslucas: RepDan: Thanks for doing this tinychat!
[8:15 PM] dallison281 left the room.
[8:16 PM] repdan: My pleasure, sir.
[8:17 PM] repdan: @repdangordon on the Twitter
[8:17 PM] diabloanon: Sorry I didnt say much, I appreciate you really trying to reach out and represent your
[8:17 PM] diabloanon: constituents
[8:17 PM] repdan left the room.
[8:17 PM] diabloanon left the room.
[8:17 PM] anon1781 left the room.
Through my interest in and use of the social micropayment service Flattr I came across Aelius Blythe (Website: cheapassfiction.com; Twitter: @CheapassFiction) who also writes free fiction you can Flattr some cash toward. She curates a list of fiction writers who use Flattr, too. After a guilty two months or three of just reading her blog & Twitter feed, I finally downloaded her short story collection Stories About Things. I’ve been reluctant to read fiction on a screen, but given her (and my) supportfor piracy, it seemed the proper way to read hers. I was also reluctant to read her fiction because even if writers are cool people, their fiction usually sucks — and then I’m all disappointed.
But I’m really glad to have read Stories About Things. That’s my standard: “Was reading this a worthwhile expenditure of my time?” And it was. (Who needs fancier criteria?) Aelius seems really at ease writing fiction, happy doing it and if you don’t like it you can go read something else.
I don’t like AmyHempel. Hempel writes these “miniaturist” stories where nothing happens and you’re supposed to feel awakened by the beautiful comma placement (and other sentence-level things). One of her fans, a friend of mine, wrote in the course of praising Hempel that “style becomes the writer’s morality.” Really? Your ethical theory is predicated on the placement of commas? The fan meant something more like voice or authenticity. All the same I like Aelius’s perspective better:
If [WebFiction] gets in the way of enjoyment, put the book down and go enjoy something else.
But before you judge to harshly, remember one thing: You are reading the literary version of graffiti art You may not want to stand in line for $20 tickets to a gallery opening for it. But somewhere in the scrawled mess of spray paint there may be a picture that sticks with you. And it gives you something better than a brick wall to stare at while you’re waiting for the gallery to open.
Stories About Things put Hempel in mind because Aelius’s stories are similarly short. Except I enjoy Stories About Things. And in the same way I enjoy The Police. Really talented and thankfully more interested in being enjoyable and rewarding than in being aesthetically elite. Here’s a good excerpt from Aelius’s collection:
Sal’s grandmother always warned him like this when she caught him looking. His mother said this was silly, and he was old enough not to be scared by fairy stories. If he looked into the sun, she told him, he would go blind, and that was that.
He never understood how someone could say that — “Don’t look at it.” People looked. If they could, they did. Sometimes, Sal thought, if he wasn’t paying attention he could turn off his hearing so when the lawnmower was going while he was reading he wouldn’t even notice. He could turn off his nose too by breathing through his mouth. Touch was a sense that everyone ignored unless it was too bad or too good. Taste was the same. But he could only turn off his sight by closing his eyes, and he couldn’t go around like that. He had to look. He didn’t know how not to. If he could see something, he would.
Another:
The flower has brown eyes, a bright brown, almost-red. They smile. They don’t shine in the sun. They shine at the sun.
In describing webfiction, (something distinct from fanfiction), Aelius lists a bunch of fiction “errors” — starting a story with weather descriptions, or the white rooms the characters are in, or making tpyos, etc. — and considers them all good, because who’s counting?
Part of the reason why I turned to web fiction was because of a sort of disillusionment with regular fiction in which I find many distractions (repetitive plot patterns, dull characters, predictable everything) that just happen to be dressed up better. I wondered for several years why I couldn’t find books that I liked, even though I read so many. But then when I started writing seriously myself and studying writing, I realized that there are certain styles that are institutionalized in writing — it’s how people are taught and styles change slowly so you get so much of the same thing. I think that’s why I can ignore the flaws in web fiction. Because I needed something DIFFERENT, and web fiction is different.
Charles Darwin’s quote (also paraphrased by Bradley Manning) describes webfiction well: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
As for setting some stories on the Internet, Aelius writes that her collection Brave New World (which I haven’t read yet) is
a collection of stories about the natural world. Not the natural world that Whitman or Thoreau wrote about, but the world that comes just as naturally to my generation as sky and woods did to theirs. Our world is made of more than that. It’s made of computer screens and wifi and endless libraries of information all at the tip of our fingers. This is our Nature, or part of it anyway.
I think she has more courage to do what comes naturally to her than I do. Following her on Twitter, where she often remarks about her fiction-writing, inspires me to write more.
(Perhaps I should cut myself more slack. My life right now primarily consists of divorcing, moving in to a new place, a knee injury, and figuring out my budget + wacky streams of income. But I haven’t ever particularly believed in cutting myself slack.)
One of the really interesting things Aelius is doing is writing authors letters to ask if they know about, if they approve of, their publishers suing their fans over piracy. (I like this exchange she got into.)
So webfiction is the opposite of National Endowment for the Arts writers who want to write comma-perfect books at taxpayer expense, and then charge taxpayers to read them, too! Sharing culture freely is better and artists need to deal with changing technological mediums instead of whining about it and suing people over it.
I feel as if I should say something critical in a token effort at Neutral Point of View. Aelius, don’t start so many sentences with conjunctions, especially “But” and “Yet” — conjunctions kick in readers’ logic modules and thereby reduce emotion. It’s fiction, not Boolean! (Unless you want it to be more logic-y.) Really in a way I don’t want to post any of this, because talking about good things sometimes interferes with them, and she certainly should just continue what she’s doing and not listen to anyone.
So call your US House Representative’s local and DC offices against SOPA before Thursday! ███████ politely give them a three-sentence statement: 1) Your name, your occupation (if relevant), and that you’re a constituent (give your state or ZIP code); 2) Two or so reasons explaining why you want your Representative to oppose SOPA (hurts job creation ███████ the reliable technology sector, institutes American Internet censorship not unlike China’s); 3) Say thanks ███████ re-state your point: “I want Representative So-and-so to OPPOSE the Stop Online Piracy Act.” The worker who answers will be polite to you, ███████ don’t have to worry about that.
It’s ███████ a bipartisan issue: currently, among others, notable Democrat Barbara Boxer ███████ notable Republicans Scott Brown and Eric Cantor receive lots of money from organizations opposing SOPA, and notable Republican John Boehner and notable Democrat Harry Reid receive ███████ money from organizations supporting it. So ███████ now there’s a good opening for you to contact your US House Representative as the issue’s still in play.
While working on a freelance infotainment assignment during the small hours of Thursday night, er, Friday morning, a friend alerted me to the presence of free tacos nearby. After engulfing a few, I happily tweeted:
This started innocently enough.
I asked who my taco benefactor was. Friend points him out: that guy over there talking philosophy. One of my BA majors was in philosophy, so I go over and talk up my taco benefactor on the subject, which we quickly hone in on Hobbes.
In 1651 Hobbes wrote in Leviathan:
I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.
The conversation gets mildly heated and a bit more interesting when he says he voluntarily chose to fight for the US military in Iraq. I asked him how he reconciled his philosophy studies with, you know, invading another country that didn’t do anything to the United States. My taco benefactor tells me that, metaphysically speaking, he thinks of reality as permeated and constituted by violence.
Kill them before they kill us, he says, because otherwise they will kill us — that sort of thing. I bring up nonviolence, Martin Luther King Jr., Zen Buddhism, etc. and win temporary favor with him by acknowledging the US MIL culture is at its best educated, sophisticated, etc., not easily rendered by broad brushstrokes (speaking of rendering things, the CIA renditions innocent civilians extra-legally, knowingly; then there’s the torture). My taco benefactor is assuaged enough by my token respect for military culture to carry on the conversation outside over a cigarette, but I carefully bum one (rare & for social purposes only) from my friend, not from him.
He (Chad Wood) tells me he worked as a communications analyst for the Joint Special Operations Command. JSOC, you know, black ops. Said he was integral to missions that led to the capture of AAM (Abu Ayyub al-Masri), for example. Said, a few times, “I don’t know if I should trust you” — I’d made my activism supporting WikiLeaks clear from the outset and that I was adversarial to his beliefs. In fact, I let him know that a few hours prior I’d been calculating bus fare to attend a protest at Fort Meade to support Bradley Manning, who was, like Chad, a military intelligence analyst. (It turns out the bus fare cost is prohibitive; the USA really needs some high-speed public transit.)
Chad philosophically justifies US aggression and treating people as expendable by reference to the grand historical project of democracy. Look, I like Madison-Jeffersonian democracy, too, but the approx 120,000 dead civilians in Iraq (due to the War since 2003) aren’t the price for that. It seemed to me Chad argued for the goodness of US foreign policy by an attempt at inference to the best explanation: Look around, he argued, things are fine, aren’t they? Don’t you think there are some really smart people making sure you and I can have this conversation, and that we should let them have their secrets? I’ll let Howard Beale reply to that one:
Well, if there’s anybody out there that can look around this demented slaughterhouse of a world we live in and tell me that man is a noble creature, believe me: That man is full of bullshit.
He pointed to a truck at a stoplight. He said if he saw such a truck overseas, a computer could give him the last 8 months on that truck in seconds. Exact maps of its past movements, actually. I asked him if they do that on domestic soil. He shook his head No.
He told me the NSA (No Such Agency National Security Agency) has a guy called “Crypto ******” — Crypto something; I didn’t catch the second part of the NSA man’s name, and when I asked Chad to repeat it, he wouldn’t. I do recall that the other, second part of the name was a dactyl (metrical foot: three syllables, stressed on the first syllable) and alliterative (starts with the same sound) — I think it was “Crypto Codekeeper” or “Crypto Keykeeper” or “Crypto Keymaster” or “Crypto Codemaster” or something like that. This guy, Chad said, arrives at top-secret meetings with a briefcase containing physical tape — like cassette tape — that’s used to communicate one-time cryptographic keys and is burned as soon as possible. This guy, Chad said, will be watched for the remainder of his life.
Chad also said he worked with CIA black sites. I’m not sure if he meant worked at them geographically or worked with them remotely (or both).
He posited a “hypothetical”: Why not a submarine vampire-tapping the communication cables that cross the oceans?
Another “hypothetical”: Why not a building here in Fort Worth — or any other major US city — with 6 elevator shafts and only 4 elevators, the other 2 used as antimissile silos or for other interesting purposes? I asked which building. He said I should have asked which buildings, plural. He didn’t specify any.
He said Obama personally authorizes dronekills (or at least the significantly controversial ones) and in general, the extrajudicial assassinations (my phrase). Said it’s public record that the Commander-in-Chief authorizes them, but that he has the experiential knowledge that it’s so.
Said AES-256 OTR properly done cannot be brute-forced yet and contains no backdoors.
Really, he asked me, if I’m so interested in this stuff, why don’t I join up? “The ultimate Assange is already working for the NSA,” he said. Get involved, he said, and get better health insurance than hippies currently have. I’d have access to all sorts of cool technology, he said, and since I’m an ace humanities guy, they’d even have stuff about metaphors and narratives for me and all that kind of stuff!
The Celestial Jukebox by CynthiaShearer. Multicultural small town tries to get along; when I first donated to Occupy Dallas, the site made me think of the grocery store in this book.
descant Summer 2007 (Volume 46) issue, which includes “The First Death of 2057” by me. A short story about punishment, capital and otherwise, in the future.
The City & The City by China Miéville. Detective story set in two cities in the same place; it’s taboo for one to observe the other; quite fitting.
Night Shift by Stephen King. The earliest short story collection from this horror-meister. I figured if you’re reading in a tough place these stories, for some, might actually be comforting, simpatico.
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. Dystopian novel about a world where people don’t read. On Nov. 15 police destroyed about 3,000 books from NYC’s Occupy Wall Street Library (video; article).
Bag: water sealant for the bookcase and various new batteries.
The books went into the tent above; the guy who received the donations told me they’d probably use the bookcase elsewhere. I wonder who read the books and what they thought and if it made a difference.
Occupy Sesame Street comment, in the voice of Cookie Monster:
Yes, there always going to be rich and poor. But we used to live in country where rich owned factory and make 30 times what factory worker make. Now we live in country where rich make money by lying about value of derivative bonds and make 3000 times what factory worker would make if factories hadn’t all moved to China.
Capitalism great system. We won Cold War because people behind Iron Curtain look over wall, and see how much more plentiful and delicious cookies are in West, and how we have choice of different bakeries, not just state-owned one. It great system. It got us out of Depression, won WWII, built middle class, built country’s infrastructure from highways to Hoover Dam to Oreo factory to electrifying rural South. It system that reward hard work and fair play, and everyone do fair share and everyone benefit. Rich get richer, poor get richer, everyone happy. It great system.
Then after Reagan, Republicans decide to make number one priority destroying that system. Now we have system where richest Americans ones who find ways to game system — your friends on Wall Street — and poorest Americans ones who thought working hard would get them American dream, when in fact it get them pink slip when job outsourced to 10-year-old in Mumbai slum. And corporations have more influence over government than people (or monsters).
It not about rich people having more money. It about how they got money. It about how they take opportunity away from rest of us, for sake of having more money. It how they willing to take risks that destroy economy — knowing full well what could and would happen — putting millions out of work, while creating nothing of value, and all the while crowing that they John Galt, creating wealth for everyone.
That what the soul-searching about. When Liberals run country for 30 years following New Deal, American economy double in size, and wages double along with it. That fair. When Conservatives run country for 30 years following Reagan, American economy double again, and wages stay flat. What happen to our share of money? All of it go to richest 1%. That not “there always going to be rich people”. That unfair system. That why we upset. That what Occupy Sesame Street about.
2011 article from Rolling Stone: Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail? Bankers commit economy-destroying crimes — actual crimes — and remain on the loose; meanwhile, many anti-Occupy folks (especially cozy liberals) are interested in nitpicking park regulations … WTF?
Occupy Dallas footage uploaded to YouTube (by someone else) on Nov 19, 2011:
On October 11 2011, with the help of a friend’s warehouse club card, I purchased 392 20-oz bottles of water (and elsewhere, some gas) using donated money entirely, for the purpose of bringing bottled water to the Occupy Dallas (Twitter) group. I was going to make a table of the ten donation amounts, complete with mean, median, and mode, but my other friend who’s a whiz at statistics told me that with such a sample size, I’d be making a complete fool of myself to post anything other than gross and net. Here you go: $100, $100.
Even the Honda Fit groaned under this water’s weight
Occupy Dallas is part of the larger Occupy Wall Street (Twitter) movement protesting genuine grievances, primarily income inequality and the unethical merger of governments, mega corporations, and big banks. I’ll throw the surveillance shadow state in there as well. If you’re so cozy within your white picket fence that you don’t see a problem, gander at these graphs from Business Insider.
The 99% aren’t asking for equality of opportunity or results.
Still voting Republican? No? Okay, good. Because the right-wing works by convincing enough people who have the resources to take off work and go vote that they, these voters, are the 1%. You too will own yachts! Actually, no, you won’t. Most you might be able to pull off is maintaining your white picket fence (if you have one), or rather, maintaining the bank’s white picket fence — banks own more home equity in the US than individuals do. Meanwhile the Democratic left, that is to say, more or less, everyone else taking traditional politics seriously, gets divided and disorganized arguing over how to best compromise with the 1% to achieve minor reforms — until populism such as Occupy Wall Street gains a loud enough nonviolent voice to bring about real change.
Hi y’all! You are also the 99%!
I stopped at Pioneer Plaza (the Dallas Occupation is now moving to City Hall Park) and, as a cop watched, hastily deposited my quarters into the parking meter. Activists at the Occupation then ferried water from my Fit to the supply base faster than I could pull my camera out. Peeps were thirsty. :-(
I had a minute to chat with the woman I understood to be Whytney (pictured left?), a leader there who is, I think I overheard, the chief operator of the OccupyDallas Twitter account. (Also: thanks to OccupyDallasCOS, OccupyDallasEMS, and CinnabarSweets for helping me out with some logistics.) I asked for, and quickly received, a list of other items — chairs, C-size batteries, walkie-talkies, shelving, ice, and more — that the 500-or-so people of Occupy Dallas desperately need. Working on that list now, y’all; I’m gathering donors.
Speaking of donations: hopefully, you’re now asking yourself how you can pitch in. There are plenty of ways.
Okay. At the time of that post, WikiLeaks was still redacting the US State Department cables they’d published, in conjunction with other media partners. A redaction is a removal of sensitive information from a document — in this case, mostly the names of informants (sometimes whistle-blowing informants, sometimes ill-intentioned informants). The worry motivating redactions was that bad guys (for lack of a better word) would retaliate against informants for their interaction(s) with the State Department. Just a few days after my post, WikiLeaks published all 250k+ of the State Department cables, raw, without redactions. Whoa, what happened?
When WikiLeaks was originally working with media partners on Cablegate, editor-in-chief Julian Assange gave an encrypted file of the cables to Guardian journalist (and confessed phone hacker) David Leigh, who later printed its password in his book (which prompted x7o to remark “#idliketothink that if JA had given me the password for cablegate, it wouldn’t now be the title of a chapter in an international bestseller”). The Guardian denies wrongdoing, claiming WikiLeaks told Leigh the password was temporary, which is technically impossible and not the sort of thing an elite cypherpunk such as Assange would mistakenly say. Other disasters, some not nearly as flagrant, combined and led to the file’s decryption by the dark sub-floor of the Internet.
Pretty soon all of the unredacted cables were springing up on websites (including at least one with a customized search engine), and taking up residence on popular file-sharing services. Therefore anyone motivated enough could locate them; some debate just how easily non-technical people could locate the unredacted cables, but really, it’s not that hard — especially for foreign intelligence agencies, computer-adept terrorists, etc.
In a surprising response to the rise of unredacted cables, WikiLeaks published the entire set of unredacted cables themselves, now known as Cablegate2. They also published a press statement:
PJ Crowley, State Department spokesman on the cables issue earlier this year, told AP on the 30th of August, 2011 that “any autocratic security service worth its salt” would probably already have the complete unredacted archive.
Two weeks ago, when it was discovered that information about the Leigh book had spread so much that it was about to be published in the German weekly Freitag, WikiLeaks took emergency action, asking the editor not allude to the Leigh book […]
WikiLeaks advanced its regular publication schedule, to get as much of the material as possible into the hands of journalists and human rights lawyers who need it. WikiLeaks and its partners were scheduled to have published most of the Cablegate material by November 29, 2011 – one year since the first publication. Over the past week, we have published over 130,000 cables, mostly unclassified. The cables have lead to hundreds of important news stories around the world. All were unclassified with the exception of the Australian, Swedish collections, and a few others, which were scheduled by our partners.
WikiLeaks has also been in contact with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty at a senior level. We contacted the US embassy in London and then the State Department in Washington on 25 August to see if their informant notification program, instituted last year, was complete, and if not, to take such steps as would be helpful. Only after repeated attempts through high level channels and 36 hours after our first contact, did the State Department, although it had been made aware of the issue, respond. Cliff Johnson (a legal advisor at the Department of State) spoke to Julian Assange for 75 minutes, but the State Department decided not to meet in person to receive further information, which could not, at that stage, be safely transmitted over the telephone.
This is getting intense
Though these comments seem clear enough at first glance, they left some things unknown. Did WikiLeaks publish Cablegate2 to protect sources, as GlennGreenwaldstated? If so, how does the publication protect sources? What does Human Rights Watch and what does Amnesty International make of Cablegate2, and what did they advise WikiLeaks? Inquiring minds who have been supportive of WikiLeaks (a risky, though legal, thing in the US) deserve to know the full reasoning behind the Cablegate2 publication, I think, without any big steps in the argumentation left for educated guesses.
Some answers arrived today in a New Scientistinterview with Assange. He specified three independent justifications for publishing Cablegate2.
To protect at-risk people. Assange said: “for harm minimisation, there are people who need to know that they are mentioned in the material before intelligence agencies know they are mentioned — or at least as soon after as possible.”
To establish an authentic version of Cablegate2. Assange “point[ed] to stories published in Tajikistan and Pakistan that have been based on fake cables.” [He said:] “WikiLeaks is a way for journalists and the public to check whether a claimed story based on a cable is actually true. They can come to our site to check. We have a 100 per cent accuracy record.”
To help reformers racing against the corrupt’s clamping down. Assange: “a race commenced between the governments who need to be reformed and the people who can reform them using the material.”
When WikiLeaks first published Cablegate2, I, like WikiLeaks Crowd-Sourceress Asher_Wolf, had (and have) several concerns. Here are mine:
WikiLeaks didn’t call for amnesty for at-risk, whistle-blowing informants.
WikiLeaks didn’t apologize to at-risk, whistle-blowing informants.
WikiLeaks apparently didn’t request public comment from Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International.
You might respond that the first three concerns above can’t be redressed given WikiLeaks’ limited resources and the quantity of the cables, or maybe that redressing the three concerns isn’t WikiLeaks’ proper role as a conduit for whistle-blowing leakers, or maybe that addressing them would cause legal problems or PR problems for their brand (their reputation affects whether whistle-blowers trust them). I can understand those responses, though I’m not sure how to fully evaluate them. I do think WikiLeaks needs to do more for the named, whistle-blowing informants.
But after today’s New Scientist interview, I do feel that on balance, WikiLeaks did the right thing by publishing Cablegate2. I hope, however, that people and organizations of sufficient importance work toward protecting the named, whistle-blowing informants, and that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International weigh in publicly on WikiLeaks’ Cablegate2 publication (in which case I’ll consider their reasoning). After all, WikiLeaks followed the computer security community’s practice of widely publishing threats (viruses, etc.) that are already out in the wild since doing so, despite risk, solves problems more quickly; yet, assuming the same strategy extends to protecting people offline might be a problematic example of what EvgenyMorozovcalls Internet-centrism: relying too much on technical knowledge when addressing problems not adequately described in technological terms.
Actually read this
As Clay Shirky says, in the United States, publishing leaked documents is basically legal (see New York Times v. United States as well as the First Amendment); it’s leaking them that’s often illegal (and risky). Today the Internet has lowered the costs associated with publishing. We with Internet connections are all now publishers, though not all journalists. While instituting legal licensing to determine who gets to be a publisher would be ridiculously bad for freedom, our larger bullhorns — especially those of the more prominent netizens among us — come with more serious responsibility than might be first imagined.
Older generations, I think, see publication itself as some measure of approval of the published content; in this view, WikiLeaks publishing the unredacted cables amounts to the organization approving of the lack of redactions. This view makes a degree of sense in the past world where the process of publication was expensive, time-consuming, and relatively uncommon.
But now, to use two metaphors each from a different science fiction writer (WilliamGibson, then CoryDoctorow), with the Internet the human race has sprouted an information exoskeleton, an outboard brain. If the principle “non-secure, online info available anywhere is available everywhere” isn’t completely true yet, it will be more or less true within a decade or, at most, two. This is the ideology of radical transparency. WikiLeaks is helping to usher in a world where not writing down secrets (or typing them out) will be the only way to keep them. That world, I think, will be one of reduced secrets and, accordingly, a better, more just one.
I'm a Seattle-based freelance writer/journalist originally from Texas. I'm also a substitute teacher in public education. I write about anything and everything, but usually philosophy tied to current events, liberatory mental health, science fiction and fantasy, investigative journalism, technology, justice, and more.
Email: DAL@RISEUP.NET (ask for pgp key or check keyservers if you want encryption)
Snailmail (United States Postal Service only): Douglas Lucas / PO Box 75656 / Seattle WA 98175 / United States
Snailmail (Private carriers such as UPS, Fedex, DHL, Amazon): Douglas Lucas / 11036 8th Ave NE #75656 / Seattle WA 98125 / United States
Note the single-character change in ZIP codes, between the address for USPS (98175) and the address for private carriers (98125), is not a typo.
Twitter:
Join the conversation