Wikileaks is who?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby Nordic » Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:30 am

wintler2 wrote:Cryptomes statement isn't the ringing endorsement one might hope for. If JA operates in a secretive and manipulative way, with power descending in a rigid hierarchy from him (or any individual), then i see that as at least a bad sign.
Yes Madsen's claims are implausible and unsupported, but that doesn't prove that Assenge is a good guy. Where is his track record? I will look for his book Joe, but i'd rather read what his peers think he has done. Maybe its just his haircut or the smirk, i hate smirks.


The cryptome guy just seems like a bit of a purity troll in a sense, in that if somebody else does something in a fashion that isn't EXACTLY the way he'd do it, then the person is somehow suspect and impure.

Which would sorta figure, coming from a guy who runs a site like cryptome.

There are a lot of people like that in the world, and we see them everywhere, including here.

You know the "if you don't do it my way, you must be corrupt and/or compromised" folks.

Add the fact that Wayne Madsen is an idiot blowhard, and I don't think there's any "there" there.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:46 pm

I always the figured the Cryptome guy was an asshole, too, but recent learning experiences gave me a new perspective. He's probably just working within the constraints of the game rules he's using, and "Operational Paranoia" has been a daily way of life for him for decades now. Cagey distrust is a necessary stance.

That said, wow, he's also quite a dick. Any biographical account I've read of him, even friendly ones, make him sound like a bit of human porcupine, mixed with a high school freshman.

That said, I too am "quite a dick," being a bit of a human ferret, mixed with a high school freshman. And I don't keep up with any of my websites as much as John does.

So really, his whole treatment of wikileaks makes sense, and objectively, it's also the only accurate stance to take.

Those of us reading this, in our cosmic ignorance of the situation, are making decisions based on < 100 data points. Our intuition is powerful and reliable in our real daily lives, but generally not so much when it comes to arrangements on pixels on an electronic monitor. I'd propose that John's take on Wikileaks represents a very scientific approach.

RAW wouldn't have said it too much different, after all.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby Nordic » Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:53 pm

This is weird. The main menu says MinM was the last commentor, and is listing it as unread, but whenever I click on it, it doesn't list his or her post, but instead the last post is Wombat Rex, and I've already read it.

I'm not paranoid or anything ....

Posting this in part just to see if this changes it.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby No_Baseline » Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:39 pm

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/04 ... deo?page=1

This is a balanced article from Mother Jones regarding Wikileaks.

The gist is that Assange is an egocentric nondiscriminating paranoiac who is really good at disseminating sensitive information...and the ensuing consequences (to him as well as everyone else affected by the leaks) take a back seat to getting the information out there.
User avatar
No_Baseline
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby wintler2 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:08 am

Who watches WikiLeaks?
Chris McGreal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/ap ... video-iraq

It has proclaimed itself the "intelligence service of the people", and plans to have more agents than the CIA. They will be you and me.

WikiLeaks is a long way from that goal, but this week it staked its claim to be the dead drop of choice for whistleblowers after releasing video the Pentagon claimed to have lost of US helicopter crews excitedly killing Iraqis on a Baghdad street in 2007. The dead included two Reuters news agency staff. The release of the shocking footage prompted an unusual degree of hand-wringing in a country weary of the Iraq war, and garnered WikiLeaks more than $150,000 in donations to keep its cash-starved operation on the road.

It also drew fresh attention to a largely anonymous group that has outpaced the competition in just a few short years by releasing to the world more than a million confidential documents from highly classified military secrets to Sarah Palin's hacked emails. WikiLeaks has posted the controversial correspondence between researchers at East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit and text messages of those killed in the 9/11 attacks.

WikiLeaks has promised to change the world by abolishing official secrecy. In Britain it is helping to erode the use of the courts to suppress information. Its softly spoken Australian director, Julian Assange, was recently in Iceland, offering advice to legislators on new laws to protect whistleblowers.

Assange, who describes what he does as a mix of hi-tech investigative journalism and advocacy, foresees a day when any confidential document, from secret orders that allow our own governments to spy on us down to the bossy letters from your children's school, will be posted on WikiLeaks for the whole world to see. And that, Assange believes, will change everything.

But there are those who fear that WikiLeaks is more like an intelligence service than it would care to admit – a shadowy, unaccountable organisation that tramples on individual privacy and other rights. And like so many others who have claimed to be acting in the name of the people, there are those who fear it risks oppressing them.

Assange has a shock of white hair and an air of conspiracy about him. He doesn't discuss his age or background, although it is known that he was raised in Melbourne and convicted as a teenager of hacking in to official and corporate websites. He appears to be perpetually on the move but when he stops for any length of time it is in Kenya. Almost nothing is said about anyone else involved with the project.

WikiLeaks was born in late 2006. Its founders, who WikiLeaks says comprised mostly Chinese dissidents, hackers, computer programmers and journalists, laid out their ambitions in emails inviting an array of figures with experience dealing with secret documents to join WikiLeak's board of advisers. Among those approached was the inspiration for the project, Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon papers about the Vietnam war to the New York Times four decades ago.

"We believe that injustice is answered by good governance and for there to be good governance there must be open governance," the email said. "New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us to not only encourage document leaking, but to facilitate it directly on a mass scale. We intend to place a new star in the political firmament of man." The email appealed to Ellsberg to be part of the "political-legal defences" the organisers recognised they would need once they started to get under the skin of governments, militaries and corporations: "We'd like … you to form part of our political armour. The more armour we have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age, history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get away with it."

Others were approached with a similar message. WikiLeaks organisers suggested that it "may become the most powerful intelligence agency on earth". Its primary targets would be "highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behaviour in their own governments and corporations."

But the group ran in to problems even before WikiLeaks was launched. The organisers approached John Young, who ran another website that posted leaked documents, Cryptome, and asked him to register the WikiLeaks website in his name. Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter but when the organisers announced their intention to try and raise $5m he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George Soros. Then he walked away.

"WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote in an email when he quit. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy." Young then leaked all of his email correspondence with WikiLeak's founders, including the messages to Ellsberg.


Despite this sticky start, WikiLeaks soon began making a name for itself with a swathe of documents and establishments started kicking back.

Two years ago, a Swiss bank persuaded a US judge to temporarily shut down the WikiLeaks site after it published documents implicating the Julius Bare bank in money laundering and tax evasion. That revealed WikiLeaks' vulnerability to legal action and it sought to put itself beyond the reach of any government and court by moving its primary server to Sweden which has strong laws to protect whistleblowers. Since then the Australian government has tried to go after WikiLeaks after it posted a secret list of websites the authorities planned to ban, and members of the US Congress demanded to know what legal action could be taken after the site revealed US airport security manuals. Both discovered there was nothing they could do. It's been the same for everyone from the Chinese government to the Scientologists.

Yet WikiLeaks worries more than just those with an instinctive desire for secrecy. Steven Aftergood, who has published thousands of leaked documents on the Secrecy News blog he runs for the Federation of American Scientists, turned down an invitation to join WikiLeaks board of advisers.

"They have acquired and published documents of extraordinary significance. I would say also that WikiLeaks is a response to a genuine problem, namely the over control of information of public policy significance," he says. Yet he also regards WikiLeaks as a threat to individual liberties. "Their response to indiscriminate secrecy has been to adopt a policy of indiscriminate disclosure. They tend to disregard considerations of personal privacy, intellectual property as well as security," he says.


"One of the things I find offensive about their operations is their willingness to disclose confidential records of religious and social organisations. If you are a Mormon or a Mason or a college girl who is a member of a sorority with a secret initiation ritual then WikiLeaks is not your friend. They will violate your privacy and your freedom of association without a second thought. That has nothing to do with whistleblowing or accountability. It's simply disclosure for disclosure's sake." Aftergood's criticism has angered WikiLeaks. The site's legal advisor, Jay Lim, wrote to Aftergood two years ago warning him to stop. "Who's side are you on here Stephen? It is time this constant harping stopped," Lim said. "We are very disappointed in your lack of support and suggest you cool it. If you don't, we will, with great reluctance, be forced to respond."

WikiLeaks has also infuriated the author, Michela Wrong, who was horrified to discover her book exposing the depths of official corruption in Kenya, It's Our Turn To Eat, was pirated and posted on WikiLeaks in its entirety on the grounds that Nairobi booksellers were reluctant to sell it for fear of being sued under Kenya's draconian libel laws.

Wrong was angry because, while she supports what WikiLeaks is about, the book is not a government document and is freely available across the rest of the world. From email distribution lists she could see that the pirated version was being emailed among Kenyans at home and abroad. "I was beside myself because I thought my entire African market is vanishing," says Wrong. "I wrote to WikiLeaks and said, please, you're going to damage your own cause because if people like me can't make any money from royalties then publishers are not going to commission people writing about corruption in Africa." She is not sure who she was communicating with because the WikiLeaks emails carried no identification but she assumes it was Assange because of the depth of knowledge about Kenya in the replies.

"He was enormously pompous, saying that in the interests of raising public awareness of the issues involved I had a duty to allow it to be pirated. He said: 'This book may have been your baby, but it is now Kenya's son.' That really stuck in my mind because it was so arrogant," she says. "On the whole I approve of WikiLeaks but these guys are infuriatingly self-righteous." WikiLeaks does apparently expect others to respect its claims to ownership. It has placed a copyright symbol at the beginning of its film about the Iraq shootings.

Assange has countered criticism over some of the material on the site by saying that WikiLeak's central philosophy is "no censorship". He argues that the organisation has to be opaque to protect it from legal attack or something more sinister. But that has also meant that awkward questions – such as a revelation in Mother Jones that some of those it claims to have recruited, including a former representative of the Dalai Lama, and Noam Chomsky, deny any relationship with WikiLeaks – are sidestepped.

Despite repeated requests for a response to the issues raised by Aftergood, Wrong and others, WikiLeaks' only response was an email suggesting to call a number that went to a recording saying it was not in service.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:17 am

I can see where you are coming from, but I can't make the connection between wikileaks being slightly dodgy, like anything I'd imagine, and it being a CIA front.

Assange's actions seem with consistent someone who is concerned about promoting and protecting whistleblowers. His organisation certainly isn't friendly with the Australian government, and wikileaks has done as much as anyone to actually attack the credibility of Conroy's net filter by publishing that ACMA list of banned websites.

Some were pretty groady sure, but others were not. Although most of it was porn, there were gambling sites (I'm not a fan of gambling addiction or the way its preyed upon either, but was that what the list was sposed to ban?) and other sites that had nothing to do with porn or gambling.

Basically, they can only function if they protect whistleblower's and they will only have cred if they publish stuff thats relevant. When they fail to do that they will fail as an organisation, and ... considering its the internet, and 15 years ago people were predicting the loss of privacy ... its not just wikileaks, its how the thing works. As for the people themselves ... who knows. Its seems wikileaks may be a commercially oriented thing, whereas other sites may not, and they are shilling for money constantly, but that doesn't make them evil considering what they have provided so far.

Some comments, like this:

"Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter but when the organisers announced their intention to try and raise $5m he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George Soros. Then he walked away."

It doesn't have to all come from the same source ffs. I reckon if I had the programming skillz, and it hadn't been done I could raise 5 mil for something like wikileaks over a couple of years. There are a few other members here I think could probably do it as well if they put their mind to it.

Back before 2004, when the crackdown started, Nimbin generated millions of dollars a year, probably a couple of mil a week off the back of the dope trade. Not just in pot, but that much money came into the town each week, most of it illegal. In the early days after 2001 you could have raised that money in that town town alone to set up a watchdog/whistleblower website/wiki that distributed stuff free. If you knew how to code and had the motivation. There would have been so many people up for it.

I dunno just sounds like one of those "all the other websites work for the CIA" things.

The whole point about open source intelligence is not that, as Hugh keeps saying, we work for the spooks. Like useful idiots. Thats always been the case.

But there are those who fear that WikiLeaks is more like an intelligence service than it would care to admit – a shadowy, unaccountable organisation that tramples on individual privacy and other rights. And like so many others who have claimed to be acting in the name of the people, there are those who fear it risks oppressing them.


But they are not the government (until proven otherwise obviously). They are not gonna kick my door at 4 am or forge someone's passport and smother me.

If Julian Assagne pisses me off enough, I could probably track him down and put him in hospital, or worse. He's just some clown with a stupid haircut at the end of the day, not a monolithic enterprise devoted to violence and theft.

Sure they don't deserve hero worship, tho they do deserve to be recognised for doing some good things. Including that video, which, as unpleasant as it is, at least gives the families certainty, and the knowledge that the US military murder their kin then lied about it. Its there for all to see. IT might be a cold unpleasant comfort, but its probably better than all the nothing for the thousands of Iraqi families who probably suffered the same fate and never had the lie exposed.

But by all means keep an eye on them point out hen they actually act like fuckheads, and there certainly are a few allegations of dodgy behaviour on their part that if they are true don't inspire confidence in them being hero's or anything the issue with the kenyan author. Making or getting a book free online instead of buying it, gee I'd never do that.

Oh wait, I would actually...

But you know, its an organisation set up by a convicted criminal to facilitate whistleblowing.

When they fuck up then they should be kicked. Have they yet? (Fucked up that is.)

This:

"WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote in an email when he quit. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy." Young then leaked all of his email correspondence with WikiLeak's founders, including the messages to Ellsberg.


Is bitchy whinging bullshit.

Without some actual context that shows wikileaks waging a disinfo campaign against legit dissent. If there is evidence of it can we see it? Cos that would be important.

Everything in the article is speculation based on claims made by their "outpaced opposition", and speculation about pretty flimsy stuff really.

Made about an organisation that just released a leaked video showing a US gunship firing on what appears to be an unarmed crowd including at one point, children and two reuters employees, who were actually targeted cos one of them was carrying a camera.

by the organisation's competitors after said organisation just pulled off a scoop they themselves would have probably died to get.

It certainly suits the Pentagon to discredit wikileaks, I certainly agree with that.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby justdrew » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:56 am

International man of mystery
BERNARD LAGAN
April 10, 2010

Julian Assange, who is behind the website WikiLeaks, and right, frames from the US military video leaked to the site, showing the scene in Baghdad after soldiers fired on a group of men, killing two journalists.

The founder of WikiLeaks lives a secret life in the shadow of those who blow the whistle, writes Bernard Lagan.

On the Al Jazeera television network, an overbearing host was grilling Julian Assange, one of the founders of WikiLeaks, the online drop zone for whistleblowers.

Assange, an Australian who rarely makes public appearances and shuffles around the world with little more than a rucksack and a laptop, quickly dealt with his haughty inquisitor. Lean and tall with a handsome, distant face, long grey locks and dressed in a a dark suit, Assange, in his late 30s, is a commanding presence.

He has a deep broadcaster's voice and gave measured, drum-tight answers about the blow he had just dealt the US military with WikiLeak's release of footage of an American helicopter gunship killing Iraqi citizens and two Reuters journalists on a Baghdad street in July 2007.

The video, shot from the helicopter, includes the voices of soldiers urging a gravely wounded Reuters photographer to pick up his weapon (they apparently did not realise it was a camera) so he could be lawfully finished off with the aircraft's deadly 30mm cannon. When a beaten-up van slithers to a halt and its passer-by occupants tumble out to aid the wounded, they too are gunned down. Only two maimed children survive.

It becomes clear why the military has resisted the demands of Reuters and others for the release of the video; the military had long claimed it did not know how the Reuters journalists had died and it initially withheld the fact that children were present.

Assange resisted Al Jazeera's invitation to savage US authorities for their years of dissembling, remarking simply: ''There was certainly spinning the message and it does seem like there has been a cover-up.''

He didn't need to say more; by week's end the video had been viewed 4.8 million times. Its impact upon the reputation of US servicemen in Iraq is devastating. Another US military video - showing last year's bombing of Afghan villages as they siphoned fuel from a tanker hijacked by the Taliban - is also coming to WikiLeaks.

Clearly someone inside the military has begun leaking, elevating WikiLeaks and Assange overnight from mainstream journalism's fringes to a must-see news breaker. ''This is a whole new world of how stories get out,'' declared Sree Screenivasan, a professor of digital media at the Columbia University journalism school in New York.

Yet for all its ideals in support of openness and freedom of information, those behind WikiLeaks - especially its key founder, Assange - dwell in shadows and intrigue.

They have no headquarters, no offices and the barest of a formal structure. Assange is particularly elusive, part obviously through necessity and part mercurial make-up. Home - or the nearest he has to one - is said to have been eastern Africa for the past two years or so.

He has rarely spoken of his upbringing in Australia or life outside of his work, arguing that to do so may assist those who want him and WikiLeaks silenced.

But the trail of his life is across the internet, as coded and mysterious as the man he is today. It begins - publicly at least - in October 1991 when Assange, then a teenager, was charged with 30 computer hacking offences.

Prosecutors alleged he and others hacked the systems of the Australian National University, RMIT and Telecom. They had even managed to remotely monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into their activities, Operation Weather.

Assange admitted 24 hacking charges and was placed on a good behaviour bond and ordered to pay $2100. The investigation in Australia began after an audacious attack on NASA's computers in 1989.

The word ''WANK'' appeared in big letters on NASA monitors, an acronym for Worms Against Nuclear Killers. Underneath was an Australian connection - lines from a Midnight Oil song. Whoever did it was never identified.

In 1997 an astonishing book was published in Melbourne. It sold a respectable 10,000 hard copies but, when it was made available free on the internet it was downloaded 400,000 times within two years.

Underground told the riveting inside story of the city's computer hackers and Assange was prominently billed in it as a researcher for the book's author, Dr Suelette Dreyfus, now an academic researcher. It opened with a detailed account of the NASA attack.

Dreyfus wrote glowingly of Assange's efforts: ''Julian had worked thousands of hours doing painstaking research; discovering and cultivating sources, digging with great resourcefulness into obscure data bases and legal papers - not to mention providing valuable editorial advice.''

The book did not name the Melbourne hackers but used their online identities and told their story. The records of Assange's court case and his biographical details on WikiLeaks match the story of Mendax - one of the hacker's online identities in Underground.

Mendax is described as a super intelligent child who never knew his father and was dragged from state to state by his mother who pursued a series of turbulent relationships.

In 1988, Mendax was 16 years old and living in Emerald in central Queensland - the age Assange was at that time. Dreyfus wrote: ''For a clever 16-year-old boy the place was dead boring. Mendax lived there with his mother; Emerald was merely a stopping point, one of dozens, as his mother shuttled her child around the continent trying to escape from a psychopathic former de facto.''

Dreyfus continued: ''Sometimes Mendax went to school. Often he didn't. The school system didn't hold much interest for him. It didn't feed his mind … The computer system was a far more interesting place to muck around in.''

She also wrote that Mendax had a deep voice for his age. Assange has a distinctively deep voice. Mendax fathered a son in his teens. Assange has said he has a son at university. Mendax suffered a breakdown after he was arrested by the police, and after a period in hospital he lived rough in the Dandenong Ranges outside Melbourne. When he finally appeared in court on the hacking charges, Assange was living in the Dandenongs.

Was this the story of Assange's life? Was he Mendax? Dreyfus will not say, citing the promise she made to the young hackers who had helped her with her book, that she would not disclose their identities. She is protective of and still obviously close to Assange.

She told the Herald this week: ''He is not politically motivated. He is more concerned with truth and the quest for it. He is certainly not party political. I think he sees that there are good people on both sides of politics and definitely bad people. He is a very brave person. He is absolutely convinced that it is worth taking high personal risks in exchange for getting truth out to the community.''

Among WikiLeaks' volunteers, those who are close to Assange are similarly protective and reluctant to speak on the record. They described on background this week a man whose traits would not be unexpected if they evolved from Mendax's turbulent and nomadic formative years. Assange, they say, is noticeably self reliant, self contained, resourceful and apt to keep a distance from others.

After his conviction, he stayed in Melbourne and built up his computer skills as programmer and as a developer of freeware.

He read widely on science and maths - he is largely self taught in most of his endeavours. He did enrol for a period at Melbourne University but did not complete his studies in mathematics.

Less convincingly answered by those who know him is whether Assange's quest to reveal secrets is the destiny of man moved by social conscience, or the natural progression of a highly intelligent child raised on the run, who found solace alone on a computer and anonymous camaraderie in cyber space.

For his epigraph in the online edition of Underground, Assange used an Oscar Wilde quote: ''Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.''

Is Mendax the real Julian Assange?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby wintler2 » Sat May 22, 2010 2:42 am

Thanks justdrew. Below is another profile piece, best i've seen on Assenge, includes tenuous link to The Family cult of 70's Melbourne.

Even my suspicious mind has to admit it can't see much wrong with Assenge, and there is alot that is very right. I guess its because i so want wikileaks to be legit that i have to try and check if it isn't

Keeper of Secrets
The Age 22/5/2010
http://www.smh.com.au/national/keeper-o ... -w230.html

IN A VERY short time, Julian Assange has become one of the most intriguing people in the world. The mysterious Australian founder of the whistleblower website WikiLeaks is as elusive as the public servants, spooks and - he assures me - cabinet ministers who regularly drop their bombshells from the anonymity of his cyberspace bolt-hole.

Of no fixed address, or time zone, Assange has never publicly admitted he is the brains behind the website that has so radically rewritten the rules in the information era. (He acknowledges registering a website, Leaks.org, in 1999, but denies ever having done anything with it.) He has never even admitted his age - although this is not so hard to work out from the parts of his life that journalists have so far been able to piece together.

''Are you 38?'' I ask. He gives an unintelligible response. So that's a yes? ''Something like that.''

Far more tantalising, however, is what he says are some very, very big leaks to come - apparently within weeks. ''Right now we are sitting on history-making stuff,'' he says.

Wikileaks appeared on the internet three years ago. It acts as an electronic dead drop for highly sensitive, or secret information: the pure stuff, in other words, published straight from the secret files to the world. No filters, no rewriting, no spin. Created by an online network of dissidents, journalists, academics, technology experts and mathematicians from various countries, all with similar political views and values apparently, the website also uses technology that makes the original sources of the leaks untraceable.

In April, the website released graphic, classified video footage of an American helicopter gunship firing on - and killing - Iraqis in a Baghdad street in 2007, apparently in cold blood. The de-encrypted video, which WikiLeaks released on its own sites, as well as on YouTube, caused an international uproar.

The Baghdad video has been WikiLeaks' biggest coup to date, although an extraordinary number of unauthorised documents - more than 1 million - have found their way to the website. These include a previously secret 110-page draft report by the international investigators Kroll, revealing allegations of huge corruption in Kenya involving the family of former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi; the US government's classified manual of standard operating procedures for Camp Delta, at Guantanamo Bay, which revealed that it was policy to hide some prisoners from the International Committee of the Red Cross; the classified US intelligence report on how to marginalise WikiLeaks; the secret Church Of Scientology manuals; an internal report by the global oil trader Trafigura about dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast; a classified US profile of the former Icelandic ambassador to the United States in which the ambassador is praised for helping quell publicity about the CIA's activities involving rendition flights; and the emails leaked from the embattled Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia in Britain, last November, which triggered the so-called ''Climategate'' scandal.

That is one leak that might have bemused conservatives convinced that WikiLeaks is run by ultra-lefties. In the blogosphere, meanwhile, conspiracy theories abound that WikiLeaks is a CIA cyber-ops plot.

Two years ago, a Swiss Bank in Zurich, Julius Baer, succeeded in temporarily closing down the website with a US District Court injunction after WikiLeaks published documents detailing how the bankers hid their wealthy clients' funds in offshore trusts (the banned documents reappeared on WikiLeaks ''mirror'' sites in places such as Belgium and Britain).

The Australian government, too, has made noises about going after WikiLeaks, after the Australian Communications and Media Authority's secret blacklist of banned websites (websites which may be blocked for all Australians if the Rudd government goes ahead with its proposed internet censorship regime), turned up on the website last year. The communications regulator further expanded the blacklist to include several pages on WikiLeaks, whose crime was publishing a leaked document containing Denmark's site of banned websites.

To say that the list of rattled people in high places around the world is growing because of Wikileaks is an understatement. The fact that the website has no headquarters, also means the conventional retaliatory measures - phones tapped, a raid by the authorities - are impossible.

Intense interest in Julian Assange started well before the Baghdad video was released, and viewed 4.8 million times in the first week. The former teenage hacker from Melbourne, whose mystique as an internet subversive, a resourceful loner with no fixed address, travelling constantly between countries with laptop and backpack, constitutes what you might call Assange's romantic appeal. But then there is the flip side: a man who believes in extreme transparency, but evades and obfuscates when it comes to talking about himself in the rare interviews that he gives - which are hardly ever face to face.

The secretiveness extends to those close to him. One woman who speaks to me on the condition of total anonymity, lived in the same share house in Melbourne as Assange, for a few months in early 2007, when WikiLeaks was in its incubation period. The house was the central hub, and it was inhabited by computer geeks.

There were beds everywhere, she says. There was even a bed in the kitchen. This woman slept on a mattress in Assange's room, and says she would sometimes wake up in the middle of the night to find him still glued to his computer. He frequently forgets to eat or sleep, wrote mathematical formulas all over the walls and the doors, and used only red light bulbs in his room - on the basis that early man, if waking suddenly, would see only the gentle light of the campfire, and fall asleep again. He also went through a period of frustration that the human body has to be fed several times a day and experimented with eating just one meal every two days, in order to be more efficient.

''He was always extremely focused,'' she says.

WE MEET in early May, the day after Assange slips back into Melbourne, his home town. He arrived on a flight from Europe, via the United States. Or so I understand from the person acting as our go-between. The same contact provides a Melbourne address, and instructions: ''Don't call a cab, find one on the street; turn off your mobile phone before you catch the cab and preferably, remove the batteries.''

Sitting outside at the rear of the address, I suspect that at the last minute, Assange won't turn up - though not because of the cold. After all, it's well known that he has been spending a lot of time in Iceland lately, advising the Icelandic government on new laws to strengthen freedom of expression and protections for sources and whistleblowers.

Last year, WikiLeaks released a confidential document showing that the major Icelandic bank, Kaupthing, had loaned billions of euros to its major shareholders shortly before the great, global financial meltdown (the website also released the legal threat sent to them by the bank's lawyers).

Suddenly, he is here - a tall, thin, pale figure with that remarkable white hair, looking very tired, and wearing creased, student-style, dark clothes and boots, and backpack.

As we shake hands, he inclines his head slightly in a courtly, old-world manner, at odds with his youthful, student-traveller looks. When I remark that there's a lot to ask him, he replies: ''That's all right - I'm not going to answer half of it.''

Is Assange his real name? Yes, he replies, then says it's the name in his passport. ''What's in a name?'' he then adds mysteriously, casting doubt on his first answer.

(At the time of writing, his passport status was apparently back to normal after immigration officials at Melbourne Airport said that his passport was going to be cancelled on the grounds that it was too tatty).

''It has been in a couple of rivers,'' Assange allows, of the state of his passport. The first time, as he recalls, in December, 2006, when he was crossing a swollen river during heavy rain, in southern Tasmania, and was swept out to sea. He swam back in. ''My conclusion from that experience is that the universe doesn't give a damn about you, so it's a good thing you do.''

Why did he have his passport with him? He had everything he needed for three weeks of survival, he replies. He needed his passport for ID when he flew to Tasmania.

Doesn't he have a driver's licence? ''No comment.'' How true is the image of him as the enigmatic founder of WikiLeaks, constantly on the move, with no real place to call home? Is this really how he lives his life?

''Do I live my life as an enigmatic man?''

No - is it true you're constantly on the move?

''Pretty much true.''

Does he have one base he'd call home?

''I have four bases where I would go if I was sick, which is how I think about where home is.''

He has spent the best part of the past six months in Iceland, he says. And the next six months? ''It depends on which area of the world I'm needed most. We're an international organisation. We deal with international problems,'' he replies.

Assange mentions four bases, but names only two. The one in Iceland, another in Kenya, where he has spent a lot of time, on and off, for the past couple of years. The Kroll report, released on WikiLeaks, reportedly swung the Kenyan presidential election in 2007.

When he's in the country, Assange lives in a compound in Nairobi with other foreigners, mainly members of non-governmental agencies such as Medecins Sans Frontieres. He originally went to Kenya in 2007 to give a lecture on WikiLeaks, when it was up and running.

''And ended up staying there,'' I suggest encouragingly.

''Mmmm.''

As a result of liking the place or …

''Well, it has got extraordinary opportunities for reforms. It had a revolution in the '70s. It has only been a democracy since 2004 … I was introduced to senior people in journalism, in human rights very quickly.''

He has travelled to Siberia. Is there a third base there? ''No comment. I wish. The bear steak is good.''

Why did he go to Georgia?

''How do you know about that?''

I read it somewhere, I reply. It was a rumour. ''Ah, a rumour,'' he says. But he did go there? ''It's better that I don't comment on that, because Georgia is not such a big place.''

Living permanently in a state of exile, means that a person might always have the sharp eye of the outsider, I suggest.

''The sense of perspective that interaction with multiple cultures gives you, I find to be extremely valuable, because it allows you to see the structure of a country with greater clarity, and gives you a sense of mental independence,'' replies Assange.

''You're not swept up in the trivialities of a nation. You can concentrate on the serious matters. Australia is a bit of a political wasteland. That's OK, as long as people recognise that. As long as people recognise that Australia is a suburb of a country called Anglo-Saxon.''

Could he ever live in one place again? A brief silence. ''I don't think so,'' he says finally.

When he isn't being deliberately obscure, and even when he is, Assange has the measured tones of an academic, sometimes sounding, once we're deep in conversation, as if he's giving a lecture. He talks with conviction, with sincerity, without bravado, and wears his ''fame'' lightly.

''I don't see myself as a computer guru,'' he remarks at one point. "I live a broad intellectual life. I'm good at a lot of things, except for spelling.''

It may be unfair to suggest that he likes the dramatic possibilities of his role. Then again, there's no doubting those dramatic possibilities.

At one point, thinking about some of the material leaked on WikiLeaks, I ask him how he defines national security.

''We don't,'' he says crisply. ''We're not interested in that. We're interested in justice. We are a super-national organisation. So we're not interested in national security.''

How does he justify keeping his own life as private as possible, considering that he believes in extreme transparency?

''I don't justify it,'' he says, with just a hint of mischievousness. ''No one has sent us any official documents that were not published previously on me. Should they do so, and they meet our editorial criteria, we will publish them.''

IN 1997, a remarkable book was released about the exploits of an extraordinary group of young Melbourne hackers. It was written by Melbourne academic Suelette Dreyfus, with, says Assange, research assistance from him.

In the book, Underground, all the hackers had monikers. Assange is said to be the character Mendax.

In the book Mendax/Assange was an unusually intelligent child, who never knew his father. His mother, an artist and activist, left home, in Queensland, aged 17, after selling her paintings for enough money to buy a motorbike. In Sydney, she joined the counterculture community, and fell in love with a young man she met at an anti-Vietnam War demonstration - who fathered Mendax. Within a year of his birth, the relationship was over. When Mendax was two, his mother married a fellow artist and actor-director, and the trio travelled from town to town as an on-the-road theatre family. But soon after Mendax turned nine, the couple separated and divorced.

Mendax's mother then started a relationship with a man who Mendax considered to be ''a violent psychopath'', a man with five different identities, who'd fabricated his entire background, including the country of his birth. They eventually fled, and began a life on the run, eventually ending up on the outskirts of Melbourne.

Assange will neither confirm nor deny that he's Mendax. But in an extraordinary slip recently, on SBS's Dateline program, whose reporter, Mark Davis tracked him down in Norway earlier this year (the program screened last Sunday), Assange said that this man ''seemed to be the son of Anne Hamilton-Byrne of the Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult in Australia, and we kept getting tracked down''.

Byrne was the leader of a cult, The Family, discovered in the Dandenong Ranges in the early 1980s. There were 14 children in the cult, who were treated abominably, and taught that they were all Byrne's children. All of them had their hair dyed blonde (the police finally caught up with the cult in 1987).

Assange won't discuss the link with Byrne. He says only: ''My mother was never in a cult. I was never in a cult.''

My question about his own white hair goes nowhere. However, Assange told me when we first talked (we have several conversations), that his hair went white at 15.

''I was very blond until 12-ish, until puberty. I built a cathode ray tube at 15, at school, and connected it backwards. The Geiger counter went 1000, 2000, 3000, 40,000. That was about the time. Also I had some head scans, because I had something like viral encephalitis. It was very mild. I just lost feeling in one cheek. Earlier on, at nine, I'd had head X-rays because I'd headbutted a giant earth ball.''

In yet another intriguing twist, when I ask Assange about a civil rights organisation he helped run in Melbourne, in the early 1990s, and which raised allegations about child neglect in the social welfare system - during Jeff Kennett's time as premier - he says he was particularly concerned with one case. With extreme reluctance, he eventually explains that he knew people whose children had been abused.

He won't talk about this in more detail either. But at a different point in the conversation he says that in the mid-1990s, he got involved helping the Victorian police track down paedophiles. ''That was just consulting on a couple of things,'' he says.

Mendax had lived in a dozen different places in different states, by the time he was 15. Assange mentions that he went to 36 different schools, including correspondence. ''How we know, is that I added them up for my sentencing hearing,'' says Assange. The story gets complicated.

In 1989, computers at NASA, the US space agency, were attacked. The word ''WANK'' appeared in huge letters across the monitor (an acronym for Worms against Nuclear Killers). The culprits have never been found.

But in 1991, Assange, still a teenager, and a key member of a hacker group called the International Subversives, was arrested and charged with more than 30 computer hacking offences. He and others, it was alleged, had hacked the systems of the Australian National University, RMIT, Telecom, and had even monitored the Australian Federal Police investigation into their activities. He eventually pleaded guilty to 24 charges and was placed on a good behaviour bond, and ordered to pay $2100. In Underground, Mendax devises a program called Sycophant, allowing the International Subversives to infiltrate computers at the Pentagon, National Security Agency, Motorola and NASA, among other organisations.

Mendax left home at 17, married his 16-year-old girlfriend, and a year later they had a son. Assange has a son at university.

Mendax's wife left him just after his 20th birthday, leaving him devastated.

Assange, like Mendax, suffered a breakdown and was briefly hospitalised after being charged by police.

He does agree that he had a spell of depression after his relationship broke up. I use the word marriage.

''Are you going to write that I've been married?'' he asks.

It was written about him, I reply - although it was Mendax who was married.

''That may not be true, so you shouldn't write it,'' says Assange.

I ask whether the mother of his son, was his wife. ''Maybe. Maybe not,'' he says, adding, ''I won't speak about my adult personal life.''

Is he currently married? ''No comment.''

His sense of humour flashes when I ask how living rough in the hills and fields outside Melbourne, after he was charged by police with computer crimes, affected him - and the way he thought about life.

''I thought I should buy shares in the internet,'' he quips.

Perhaps he did. Assange isn't paid a salary by WikiLeaks. He has investments, which he won't discuss. But during the 1990s he worked in computer security in Australia and overseas, devised software programs - in 1997 he co-invented ''Rubberhose deniable encryption'', which he describes as a cryptographic system made for human rights workers wanting to protect sensitive data in the field - and also became a central figure in the free software movement.

The whole point of free software, he comments, is to ''liberate it in all senses …'' He adds, ''It' s part of the intellectual heritage of man. True intellectual heritage can't be bound up in intellectual property.''

Did being arrested, and later on finding himself in a courtroom, push him into a completely different reality that he had never thought about - and in a direction that eventually saw him start thinking along the lines of a website like WikiLeaks, that would take on the world?

''That [experience] showed me how the justice system and bureaucracy worked, and did not work; what its abilities were and what its limitations were,'' he replies. ''And justice wasn't something that came out of the justice system. Justice was something that you bring to the justice system. And if you're lucky, or skilled, and you're in a country that isn't too corrupt, you can do that.''

In another life, Assange might have been a mathematician. He spent four years studying maths, mostly at Melbourne University - with stints at the Australian National University in Canberra - but never graduated, disenchanted, he says, with how many of his fellow students were conducting research for the US defence system.

''There are key cases which are just really f---ing obnoxious,'' he says. According to Assange, the US Defence Advance Research Project Agency was funding research that involved optimising the efficiency of a military bulldozer called the Grizzly Plough, which was used in the Iraqi desert during Operation Desert Storm during the 1991 Gulf War.

''It has a problem in that it gets damaged [from] the sand rolling up in front. The application of this bulldozer is to move at 60 kilometres an hour, sweeping barbed wire and so on before it, and get the sand and put it in the trenches where the [Iraqi] troops are, and bury them all alive and then roll over the top. So that's what Melbourne University's applied maths department was doing - studying how to improve the efficiency of the Grizzly Plough. This is beyond the pale.

''The final nail in the coffin was that I went to the hundredth anniversary of physics at the ANU. There were some 1500 visitors there - four Nobel prize winners - and every goddamn one of them was carting around, on their backs, a backpack given to them by the Defence Science Technology Organisation. At least it was an Australian defence science organisation.''

Assange says he did a lot of soul searching before he finally quit his studies in 2007.

He had already started working with other people on a model of WikiLeaks by early 2006. There were people at the physics conference, he goes on, who were career physicists, ''and there was just something about their attire, and the way they moved their bodies, and of course the bags on their backs didn't help much either. I couldn't respect them as men.''

His university experience didn't define his cynicism, though. Assange says that he's extremely cynical anyway.

''I painted every corner, floor, wall and ceiling in the 'room' I was in, black, until there was only one corner left. I mean intellectually,'' he adds. ''To me, it was the forced move [in chess], when you have to do something or you'll lose the game.''

So WikiLeaks was his forced move?

''That's the way it feels to me, yes.''

So who leaks to Wikileaks?

Assange says that intelligence agencies will never confirm or deny that they ''post'' documents, even when some of those documents display the letterhead of the intelligence organisation involved.

''I love classification labels, because if it says Top Secret on the front, I think 'this is probably an interesting document,' and legitimate,'' he says. ''There's a glut of information of low quality in the world. So information that has been restricted and suppressed - it's interesting that people have [spent] economic effort to restrict and suppress it - so info which has extra restrictions on it, usually has an extra ability to induce reforms if it's released.

''Intelligence organisations nearly always put what section it's from, and the classification label. Sometimes they'll use code words in the classification. They'll even classify the classification.''

It's curious, surely, given the Pentagon's anger over the leaking of the Baghdad video, that Assange hasn't been asked to come into some office, somewhere, and have a chat. He returned to Australia via the US with no trouble, I point out.

''I believe that there's an understanding that we have a lot of support within these organisations, and interference with us runs the risk of being exposed internally, and would likely be exposed by us,'' he replies.

It's also curious that he hasn't been approached to work for any of the security agencies for ''the greater good''.

WikiLeaks is for the greater good, he says.

THE individual who sent WikiLeaks the Baghdad video remains invisible. WikiLeaks released two versions of the video - a longer version, and a shorter one - which has also caused much controversy. Twenty minutes was said to be missing from the longer version. It was like that when they received the footage, says Assange, and they were very careful to make as few edits as possible to the 18-minute version they released.

''In particular the first 11 minutes is one continuous take. And then there's only cuts for time, and only about three cuts. The first 13 minutes is when all the action happens.''

Why did WikiLeaks put a copyright symbol on the footage they released?

''We didn't have time to sort out copyright - about how all that should be managed,'' he replies.

''We had some ideas, but we were quite concerned about people taking material and misrepresenting it.''

As the list of rattled people in high places gets longer, Assange and his team have become used to an increased level of interest from the authorities - and security services, leaked documents from some of those services notwithstanding.

There are other security concerns as well. Two human rights lawyers who had been helping WikiLeaks were shot dead in their car on a Nairobi street last year. Assange himself has written an online article about increased surveillance activities, ''most of which appears to be the results of US 'interests' ''.

In an email he sent out to journalists earlier this year, Assange wrote: ''We have had to spread assets, encrypt everything and move telecommunications and people around the world to activate protective laws in different national jurisdictions.''

In 2008, Islamic militants threatened WikiLeaks after the website ''mirrored'' a video of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders' controversial view of Islam in his 17-minute film, Fitna. A trailer of the film had been uploaded to several video-sharing sites, including YouTube, causing fury in Muslim nations. Pakistan's government ordered the nation's internet service provider to block YouTube's sites, which caused YouTube to be blocked in other countries as well. YouTube removed the trailer and access was restored.

Another website that hosted the trailer also removed it, saying the lives of its staff had been put at risk. WikiLeaks then mirrored the video, and got so much traffic that the site had to be temporarily taken off line.

''We republished the material because it had been censored because of the threat of violence. Then we received threats of violence [via] emails,'' says Assange.

''We didn't believe them to be credible threats in the sense that we have good physical security in the sense of our internet infrastructure, secret locations and our personnel. That technology is geared at dealing with spy agencies. Islamic militants don't have the capacity to get past those defences.''

He adds that his team has also received threats from US military militants - ''I deliberately use that word'' - which they had not found credible either. ''I did not feel that it was possible for them to carry out the threats.''

WikiLeaks, he maintains, has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined. "That shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media. How is it that a team of five people [WikiLeaks is run by five full-time ''staffers'' and almost 1000 volunteers] has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined? It's disgraceful.

''They don't want to give [out] any information unless it's going to sell more newspapers. The result is the public record is denied primary sources.''

He would like to see all media develop their own forms of WikiLeaks. That would point his own website out of business, I point out.

''We have a proposal to [an American foundation] for a grant to do just that,'' he replies.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby Nordic » Sat May 22, 2010 3:02 am

Wow, Wintler, thanks for that. That guy might just be my hero.

I can't wait to see what's in the pipeline. I think it's gonna be about 9/11.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Sat May 22, 2010 10:18 am

"Even my suspicious mind has to admit it can't see much wrong with Assenge, and there is alot that is very right. I guess its because i so want wikileaks to be legit that i have to try and check if it isn't"

Don't think we don't appreciate it tho.

There could be something yet, but he as connected to the Melbourne hacker scene of the 80s and early 90s. Most of them were ok back then. It'd be nice to find out a few places he went to school - thats always a way to start to sus out people.

I think he's on the level tho. But worth watching in case.

I guess in his position a high profile might be a protection.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby chiggerbit » Sat May 22, 2010 10:48 am

That guy might just be my hero.


Nice eye candy, too. He can bunk out at my pace any time he wants to. (Small elbow nudge in the ribs at cuda, who thinks we shouldn't comment on a person's looks.)
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Wikileaks is who?

Postby chiggerbit » Sat May 22, 2010 11:11 am

Interesting bit from the wiki:

...On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended Wikileaks' donation account and froze its assets. Wikileaks claimed that this had happened before, and was done for "no obvious reason".[32] The account was restored on 25 January 2010....
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests