Wikileaks and Julian Assange Mega-thread

[MarkOttawa]

Pak paranoia and a WikiHoax--The country is pervaded with conspiracy theories; no wonder some fell for this. From Foreign Policy’s “AfPak Daily brief“ (lots of links at original):
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/10/daily_brief_pakistani_media_in_wikileaks_hoax

Crude propaganda hoax

Yesterday morning, major Pakistani newspapers carried stories allegedly based on U.S. diplomatic cables released by the web site Wikileaks in which U.S. officials purportedly described Indian spies supporting Islamist militants in Baluchistan and Waziristan, called former Indian army chief General Deepak Kapoor “an incompetent combat leader and rather a geek,” said a “Bosnia-like genocide” is occurring in Indian-administered Kashmir, and asserted that the Indian military is supporting Hindu fundamentalist groups, among other claims (Guardian). The cables, however, could not be found in the Wikileaks database, suggesting Wikileaks was exploited for propaganda purposes.

Pakistan’s Express Tribune and The News have issued mea culpas admitting that the “story was dubious and may have been planted,” acknowledging that the reports came from the Islamabad-based Online wire service, which is “known for their close connections with certain intelligence agencies” (AP, AFP, BBC, ET, The News). However, the Urdu-language Jang, which carried the story on its front page yesterday, has not mentioned the incident, and the right-wing daily The Nation, which “still appeared to believe the story,” editorialized that the cables revealed “India’s true face” and “Washington’s hypocrisy” (BBC, Nation)…

Mark
Ottawa

 

[57Chevy]

Mark
      That proves one very important point that must be asked by all parties concerned with regards to information leaks.
What percentage is actually planted information ?
What is true and what is not true ?
Knowing the fact that there is misinformation it destroys the overall credibility
of all the other so called leaked information.

 

[Journeyman]

Knowing the fact that there is misinformation it destroys the overall credibility of all the other so called leaked information.

...or reaffirms conspiracy theorists' delusions.

 

[old medic]

Pro-WikiLeaks hackers arming selves for holiday blitz
Raphael G. Satter
London— Reuters
copy at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/pro-wikileaks-hackers-arming-selves-for-holiday-blitz/article1832726/

Wikileaks supporters on Friday downloaded increasing amounts of the denial-of-service software used to attack companies seen as hostile – a development that could challenge even Internet giants such as PayPal and Amazon.com during the crucial Christmas shopping season.

U.S. data security company Imperva says downloads of the attack program used to bombard websites with bogus requests for data have jumped to over 40,000, with thousands of new downloads reported overnight.

“It's definitely increasing,” Imperva Web researcher Tal Be'ery said in a telephone interview from Israel.

The freely available software, dubbed “Low Orbit Ion Cannon,” is a critical part of the campaign by “hacktivists” seeking to take revenge on sites they believe have betrayed WikiLeaks, which has outraged American officials by publishing hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables and military intelligence reports.

Users who download the software essentially volunteer their computers to be used as weapons that volley streams of electronic spam at targeted websites. The more computers, the greater the flow of data requests, and the better chances are of overwhelming the targeted website.

The cyberguerillas, who gather under the name Anonymous, have had mixed results so far. Attacks directed at the main pages of Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. succeeded in making them inaccessible, in MasterCard's case for several hours. Attacks on online payment company PayPal Inc. have periodically rendered a small part of its website inoperative.

But other planned attacks, on London-based Moneybookers.com or Amazon.com, have either fizzled or been called off.

All five sites have severed their links to WikiLeaks over the past weeks and months, many citing suspected “terms of use” violations. The moves angered WikiLeaks supporters and alarmed free speech advocates, many of whom claim that the companies are caving in to U.S. pressure to muzzle the controversial website.

WikiLeaks has been careful to distance itself from Anonymous, saying “we neither condemn nor applaud these attacks.”

A press release circulated under the Anonymous name Friday said the group – which it refers to as an “Internet gathering” – was acting out of a desire “to raise awareness about WikiLeaks and the underhanded methods employed by the above companies to impair WikiLeaks' ability to function.”

Imperva said Friday that it had monitored Anonymous supporters boasting about bringing in huge numbers of extra computers to back the attacks – something it said might challenge Amazon.com at one of the retailer's busiest times of the year.

But Be'ery stressed the boasts were unconfirmed, and the Anonymous statement said its members did not want to alienate the public by causing online havoc over the holidays.

“Simply put, attacking a major online retailer when people are buying presents for their loved ones would be in bad taste,” the press release said.

Dutch police said Friday they were investigating whether hackers were responsible for taking down the websites of police and prosecutors in the Netherlands after the arrest of a 16-year-old suspected cybercriminal.

Dutch media reported that Anonymous tried to take down the two police sites in an apparent revenge attack. Both sites were only sporadically reachable Friday morning.

In Australia, WikiLeaks supporters held rallies in Brisbane and Sydney on Friday. In Sydney, more than 500 people gathered outside Town Hall, some waving signs that read, “Hands off WikiLeaks, We deserve the truth,” and “Don't shoot the messenger.”

One man sealed his mouth shut with tape on which the words “NO LEAKS” had been written.

The U.S. Department of Justice, meanwhile is considering whether to charge those behind the leaks under the espionage act or other laws, while U.S. diplomats, deeply embarrassed by WikiLeaks' disclosures, have struggled to contain the fallout.

“The deplorable Wikileaks disclosures put innocent lives at risk, and damage U.S. national security interests,” U.S. Ambassador to London Louis Susman wrote in an editorial Friday in The Guardian newspaper.

“There is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends,” he added.

The U.S. may soon be facing more than WikiLeaks as an opponent.

A former WikiLeaks spokesman plans to launch a rival website Monday called Openleaks that will help anonymous sources deliver sensitive material to public attention. Daniel Domscheit-Berg made the claim in a documentary by Swedish broadcaster SVT airing Sunday but obtained in advance by the AP.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange remained in jail ahead of a Dec. 14 hearing where he plans to fight extradition to Sweden to face sex crimes allegations.

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Blocking WikiLeaks


Can Free Speech Be Protected on a Private Internet?



12/10/2010
A commentary by Konrad Lischka
SPIEGEL ONLINE

LINK

Does the US constitution protect WikiLeaks? Only courts can decide how far the whistleblowing platform can go. Yet Amazon and others have simply blocked the site, rather than waiting for legal clarification. The companies' cowardice is now threatening Internet freedom.

The disappointment was huge -- the fury even greater.

Why have companies like Amazon and PayPal decided that they didn't want WikiLeaks as a customer? Angry citizens have called for boycotts on online forums, Facebook and Twitter. Many accuse the companies of censorship.

This term is misleading. There is no state censorship at play here. For that a court would have to decide in a concrete case against the freedom of the press. And that has not occurred here -- mainly because the Internet companies did not even take their chances with the legal route.

Despite all the political pressure that is being applied to WikiLeaks, in the US it is not against the law to process donations for the platform or to distribute its documents. Yet Amazon and PayPal have decided not to do so any more.

WikiLeaks can continue to communicate via Twitter or Facebook, and many people can access the platform's contents on their Internet providers. These other companies have not decided to block WikiLeaks.

'Pick Your Fights'

The different reactions from Internet firms to the WikiLeaks publications reveal a dilemma. Many citizens regard the Internet as a public space, but in fact it is a private sphere. And the companies that control almost all the forums on the Web can, if in doubt, exercise their rights of ownership and ban who they like.

The extent to which citizens are free on the Internet depends on whether these companies want to get into conflict with the state or other firms, for example copyright holders.

They have to work out, on their behalf, how far the right to free speech goes, and when it infringes upon other rights, for example personal or author rights.

There is a saying "pick your battles." Well, Internet giants Amazon and PayPal have clearly decided not to join the fight for WikiLeaks. They are avoiding conflict and have thrown out the activists by pointing to their terms and conditions. They have the right to do so. Companies should be allowed to be cowards, if the risk seems too high for them.

That risk could be a general threat from the US political establishment -- or the fury of US customers, who regard WikiLeaks as a platform for state treason. Such rage could hit the company a lot harder than the revolt by those activists now calling for a boycott of Amazon and PayPal.

Up to the Courts to Rule on WikiLeaks

Yet these calls for a boycott should be welcomed. They could show the companies that the situation is actually the exact opposite to what they had assumed: that perhaps they have been wrong in their appraisal of the reaction to WikiLeaks and have actually annoyed more customers than expected with the block. Then perhaps the next time they will do things differently.

What is really of concern is how quickly the companies made these decisions. Their way of dealing with controversies can only harm the Internet, regardless of what one's stance is on WikiLeaks. These positions are so contrary -- treason vs. serving the public good -- and the contentious issue is so fundamental -- what can citizens publish? -- that it should be a question for the courts.

At the moment it is doubtful that it will get that far -- not just because the Internet giants are too cowardly to put the US government's desire for a lawsuit against WikiLeaks to the test.

Avoiding Conflict

But WikiLeaks activists themselves are also avoiding a legal confrontation. Instead of suing Amazon they are simply putting the data on a different server. The move demonstrates pragmatism. But in the long term it would be of more use to the Internet in the US were the issue brought before the courts -- to clarify if Amazon can simply delete a customer's content.

In Germany a similar question is also pending. The non-profit Wau Holland Foundation, which handles and transfers donations to WikiLeaks in Germany, is looking at taking legal action against PayPal. The eBay subsidiary had blocked the foundation's account -- and a bank is not allowed to simply close the account of a party or organization. There are relavent precedents in Germany.

The question in the US is whether the constitution gives protection to the controversial WikiLeaks publications. It is to be hoped that a court will clarify this issue with relation to the WikiLeaks dispute, instead of the current situation where companies are making these decisions based on their expectations of public opinion and the potential for conflict with politicians.

It is only with companies that are more generous in their interpretation of fundamental rights that the Internet can continue to function as a public space.

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



Assange Lawyers Prepare for U.S. Spying Indictment

Attorney Says American Indictment Related to Espionage Act Imminent for Wikileaks Founder



By JIM SCIUTTO and LEE FERRAN
LONDON, Dec. 10, 2010

LINK

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, the man behind the publication of more than a 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables, could soon be facing spying charges in the U.S. related to the Espionage Act, Assange's lawyer said today.

"Our position of course is that we don't believe it applies to Mr. Assange and that in any event he's entitled to First Amendment protection as publisher of Wikileaks and any prosecution under the Espionage Act would in my view be unconstitutional and puts at risk all media organizations in the U.S.," Assange's attorney Jennifer Robinson told ABC News.

Robinson said a U.S. indictment of Assange was imminent.

Assange is already in custody in London on sexual assault charges including rape originating out of Sweden. He is being held in solitary confinement with restricted access to a phone and his lawyers, Robinson said.

"This means he is under significant surveillance but also means he has more restrictive conditions than other prisoners," she said. "Considering the circumstances he was incredibly positive and upbeat."

Justice Department officials declined to comment on the possible coming charges, but earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the release of the documents had put the United States at risk and said he authorized a criminal investigation into Assange.

"The lives of people who work for the American people has been put at risk; the American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that are, I believe, arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can," Holder said Tuesday. "We have a very serious, active, ongoing investigation that is criminal in nature. I authorized just last week a number of things to be done so that we can hopefully get to the bottom of this and hold people accountable, as they -- as they should be."

In response to widespread criticism of the sex crime charges, a lawyer for the two Swedish women accusing Assange said the charges are in no way politically motivated and the woman are angry at that suggestion.

"They were attacked by Mr. Assange and then they are treated like perpetrators themselves," attorney Claes Borgstrom told ABC News. "He has molested them and then sacrificed them for his own interests."

One woman accused Assange of sexually coercing her twice in August, including one time when he allegedly "forcibly parted her legs, preventing her from moving... then had intercourse without a condom," according to prosecutors. The second woman claimed that Assange had unprotected sex with her while she slept.

Borgstrom told ABC News one of the women went to the hospital following one of the alleged attacks.

The timing of the arrest earlier this week led a Wikileaks spokesperson, Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens and hundreds of Assange's supporters to claim they were part of a political effort to marginalize the Wikileaks founder in the face of the massive document drop.

But Borgstrom said his clients were hardly against Wikileaks. Rather, the two were employed by Wikileaks and were in fact "admirers" of Assange's work.

"They want that there will be a trial so Julian Assange must answer to what he has done and so the world sees it's true and it really happened," Borgstrom said.

The accusations against Assange were previously dropped by one Swedish prosecutor before being picked up by another. When the accusations were read in a British court Tuesday, the judge said the case is "about serious sexual offenses on three separate occasions, involving two separate victims...extremely serious allegations."

Assange has denied the sex crimes charges and after his arrest, Stephens told ABC News Assange is ready "to vindicate himself and clear his good name."

Cyber Battle Explodes Over Wikileaks

appears to have sparked a [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wikileaks-anonymous-cyber-attacks/story?id=12355960]cyber skirmish as his supporters targeted government and private websites that have taken action against Wikileaks, before some the supporters' own pages were taken down in return.

After a loosely affiliated group of computer users known as Anonymous declared Operation: Payback against several major websites like Paypal, Mastercard.com and Visa.com -- all companies who refused to process payments for Wikileaks -- and the Swedish government website, some of those sites went down for hours Wednesday. Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told ABC News she was among the victims of the attacks late Wednesday after she spoke out on Facebook against Assange.

"No wonder others are keeping silent about Assange's antics," Palin said in an e-mail to ABC News. "This is what happens when you exercise the First Amendment and speak against his sick, un-American espionage efforts."

For hours Mastercard.com was not operational once again, although service appears to have been restored.

"This is a way kind of to strike back and to say 'Hey, you can't push us around,'" Wired Magazine's Noah Schactman told "Good Morning America." "These retaliatory attacks really show that in today's, you know, super-networked world, that a very few number of people can have an outsize effect."

But then the so-called "hackivists" took their own cyber shots as several websites they were apparently using to organize the attacks, including Facebook and Twitter, were also taken down. The FBI is investigating the so-called Operation: Payback attacks, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a press conference today.

A cached page for Anonops.net, a page that is currently down but had shown Anonymous' alleged plans, quotes the co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which describes itself as the "first line of defense" against attacks on online freedom.

"The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops," EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow said in a tweet last week.

Wikileaks spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson told ABC News in an exclusive interview the refusal of service by Mastercard, Visa and Paypal amounted to an "outrageous" attack on freedom of speech.

"We are seeing growing support for us, especially in the last few days when we've had these outrageous attacks on us by companies that are bowing to political pressure from political forces in the United States," Hrafnsson said Wednesday. "We are getting seriously close to censorship in the United States and that must surely go against the fundamental values that the country is based upon."

Cables Target U.S. National Security Interests

One of the most recent cables leaked to anger U.S. authorities includes a list of installations vital to America's national security and interests.

U.S. government officials say that the diplomatic leaks have already had an effect on relationships with individuals and governments around the world.

"We have gotten indications that there is at least some change in how individuals and governments cooperate with us, and share information," said Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan, without providing any details. There's a vague "sense that there has been some pulling back because of these revelations."

Speaking a press conference Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the leak could "create potential dangers for our friends and partners."

In a February 2009 cable, American envoys were asked to identify sensitive places "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States."

Clinton said she would not comment on "any specific cable," but said the theft of the cables was "deeply distressing."

Clinton then called on "countries around the world and businesses to assist us in preventing any of the consequences that could either endanger individuals or other interests internationally."




]LINK to News Video

Related

Downloads of Cyberattack Software Spike Overnight
Assange Accusers 'Treated Like Perpetrators'
Clinton Faces Leaders Dissed in Secret Cables
McCain Wants Heads to Roll in Wikileaks Scandal


Video

Watch: WikiLeak Crackdown Prompts Cyber Attacks
Watch: Wikileaks' Assange Arrested, Held Without Bail
Watch: Julian Assange Arrested in London
Watch: Wikileaks Fallout: Clinton Repairs Relations

 

[George Wallace]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, the man behind the publication of more than a 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables, could soon be facing spying charges in the U.S. related to the Espionage Act, Assange's lawyer said today.

Looking at the links to the Espionage Act, one will see that under US Code, TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I—CRIMES, CHAPTER 37—ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP, Sections:  793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information; 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government; and  798. Disclosure of classified information, would easily apply to this case. 

 

[GAP]

I realize Sweden has first dibs on the twit, but will Sweden extradite him to the US?

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



Assange moved to isolation in jail as WikiLeaks continue




By Guy Jackson,
Agence France-Presse
December 10, 2010 9:12 AM

LINK

LONDON - Police moved WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange to the segregation unit of a London jail for his safety, his lawyer said Friday as new cables showed the U.S. suspects Myanmar has a secret nuclear program.

The 39-year-old Australian has been moved from the main part of Wandsworth prison to an isolation unit, said Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange's legal team.

"The prison authorities are doing it for his own safety, presumably," she told AFP.

Assange is due to appear in a London court for a second time on Tuesday after being arrested on a warrant issued by Sweden, where prosecutors want to question him about allegations of rape and sexual molestation made by two women.

WikiLeaks insists the allegations are politically motivated because the whistleblowing website has enraged Washington and governments around the world by releasing thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables.

Robinson complained that Assange "does not get any recreation" in the prison and "has difficulties getting phone calls out . . . he is on his own."

Assange, a former computer hacker, is not allowed to have a laptop computer in his cell, but his lawyers have requested one.

"Obviously we are trying to prepare a legal appeal and he has difficulties hand writing, so it would be much easier in order to assist us in the preparation if he had a laptop," Robinson said.

She declined to elaborate on why he had difficulties writing.

Assange is in "very good" spirits but "frustrated" that he cannot answer the allegations that WikiLeaks was behind cyber attacks launched on credit card firms which have refused to do business with the website.

"He told me he is absolutely not involved and this is a deliberate attempt to conflate WikiLeaks, which is a publishing organization, with hacking organisations which are not," she said.

Assange is due to appear in a London court again next Tuesday, when his case will be argued by Geoffrey Robertson, a high-profile British-Australian human rights lawyer.

Assange's mother said Friday she was worried for her son because "massive forces" were ranged against him.

Christine Assange, who lives in Queensland, dismissed the rape accusations against her son, but told Australia's Seven Network that she was concerned about what will happen to him.

"Julian, rape, straight out of my guts — no way. Julian would not rape," she said.

She added: "It's a worry, of course. I am no different from any other mother. Every time the news goes on I am glued to it.

"These massive forces have decided they are going to stop him and they are not going to play by the rules."

Cables released by WikiLeaks overnight Thursday showed Washington has suspected for years that Myanmar has a secret nuclear program supported by North Korea, with witnesses reporting suspicious activity dating back to 2004.

One cable from the U.S. embassy in Yangon, dated August of that year, quoted an unidentified source as saying he saw about 300 North Koreans working at an underground site.

"The North Koreans, aided by Burmese workers, are constructing a concrete-reinforced underground facility that is '500ft from the top of the cave to the top of the hill above'," the cable said.

"The North Koreans are said to be assembling missiles of unknown origin," it said, adding that the report alone should not been taken as definitive proof or evidence of sizeable North Korean military involvement with the Myanmar regime.

Another leaked release said U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer had sought damaging information against Nigeria's ex-attorney general to pressure him into dropping lawsuits over a drug trial.

In the cable published by Britain's Guardian newspaper, Pfizer's country manager in Nigeria, Enrico Liggeri, told U.S. officials of the operation in a meeting on April 9, 2009.

Pfizer has maintained that it had done nothing wrong and has denied any liability.

© Copyright (c) AFP

==========================================================

More on This Story

Senators praise firms for dropping WikiLeaks
Dutch teenager held for WikiLeaks revenge attacks

WikiLeaks backers threaten more cyber attacks

Hackers hit back after WikiLeaks cash cut
WikiLeaks: online battleground forming as 'hacktivists' strike back

Related Stories from Around the Web

The War You Don't See – review  Guardian, UK  Friday, December 10, 2010

Former WikiLeaks worker: rival site under way  Inform  Friday, December 10, 2010

WikiLeaks says has no link to cyber attacks  Reuters  Thursday, December 09, 2010

 

[Journeyman]

There is no state censorship at play here. For that a court would have to decide in a concrete case against the freedom of the press. And that has not occurred here -- mainly because the Internet companies did not even take their chances with the legal route.

It wasn't a case of "taking ones chances" in court. There was no need; it was a business decision. Your assumption that because business doesn't agree with your limited worldview, it should be a legal fight, is simply wrong.

There is a saying "pick your battles." Well, Internet giants Amazon and PayPal have clearly decided not to join the fight for Wilek's. They are avoiding conflict and have thrown out the activists by pointing to their terms and conditions. They have the right to do so. Companies should be allowed to be cowards, if the risk seems too high for them.

  :  As much as these internet warriors like to see this as the battle royale against "the man" -- with the added benefit of not getting pepper-sprayed or getting their hands dirty -- again, it's not cowardice, it's business.

Yet these calls for a boycott should be welcomed.

Yes, absolutely, but not for the reason the Black-Bloc wannabes imagine.

They should be welcomed because it will very likely confirm what Amazon and PayPal are betting on: the people who buy books and music through Amazon, and pay for it via PayPal, are probably the demographic that has jobs, spends money on line, and thinks Assange is an idiot.

Sorry, but conversely, those protesting are more likely to be people who think downloading a bootleg copy supports "the greater good," don't have sufficient surplus income to justify PayPal seeking their business, and have no concept of honour.....in the sense that giving away Afghan supporters' names or highlighting our C-IED vulnerabilities is a bad thing.


So bring on the protests. Sad, that you've chosen this as your shining hour of glory.  :



Edit: Yes, I'm expecting to lose more MilPoints from those who are offended that I use large words and don't believe that sitting in a classroom makes one intelligent. I'm OK; take 'em. 

 

[Nemo888]

It's strange how we think of the internet as a public utility when in reality it is almost entirely privately owned. Perhaps it should become a public utility if it is proven to be an essential service. Many people think of it as such already.

I also have found my own Diplomatic Cable to release from HM Embassy in Moscow.

Released in 2000 under UK Freedom of Information Act.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's strange how we think of the internet as a public utility when in reality it is almost entirely privately owned. Perhaps it should become a public utility if it is proven to be an essential service. Many people think of it as such already.

Public utilities are often (usually?) regulated by someone who claims to have the public's best interests at heart ...

I rather prefer the unregulated status quo.

 

[PuckChaser]

I also have found my own Diplomatic Cable to release from HM Embassy in Moscow.

That is more hilarious and poignant than any of those Wikileaks thefts.

 

[ModlrMike]

It's strange how we think of the internet as a public utility when in reality it is almost entirely privately owned. Perhaps it should become a public utility if it is proven to be an essential service. Many people think of it as such already.

I also have found my own Diplomatic Cable to release from HM Embassy in Moscow.

If this was the sort of thing that was being released, then I wouldn't have much of an issue. However, lives are at stake here. Real people's lives that these self appointed champions of free speech are quite happy to endanger. Witness the "cracked eggs" comment.

 

[George Wallace]

;D

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

'Nature Is Good, as Long as It Is Controlled'


US Diplomats Analyzed Death Of Bruno the Bear


12/03/2010
By Sebastian Fischer and Ralf Neukirch
SPIEGEL ONLINE

LINK

The US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks have generated a commotion around the world. In addition to reporting on the internal workings of global governments, the dispatches also include some oddities, like the 2006 shooting of Bruno, the first wild bear to wander into Germany in 170 years.

It was one of those great moments in Bavarian politics. When Bruno the wild brown bear wandered over the Alps from Italy into the southern German state, then-Governor Edmund Stoiber was quick to address the matter. Actually, Bavaria was pleased to welcome bears to the state, he said. Provided they are normal bears. Stoiber's definition at the time: "The bear that normally resides in the forest, doesn't leave it and kills perhaps one or two sheep per year."


So far, so good. But Bruno, who wandered over from Italy's Trentino province, had a well-documented penchant for killing livestock, pets and other animals. "And we see a difference between the normal bear, the malicious bear and the problem bear," Stoiber explained. And, yes, "it is very clear that this bear is a problem bear," he concluded.

The government of Bavaria ultimately gave permission for the bear to be shot by hunters. Bruno, the first wild bear to arrive in Bavaria for over 170 years, was killed on June 26, 2006, in the mountainous Kümpflalm area above Spitzingsee lake in the Alps.

US Diplomats Wax Poetic about Bruno

Of course, American diplomats stationed in Munich, the capital of Bavaria, and in Berlin didn't miss any of this. Information about the bear hunt was promptly cabled back to Washington. In the newly-leaked US diplomatic dispatches, one can find detailed information about Bruno the brown bear. That summer the US Consulate, located near Governor Stoiber's offices in Munich, registered some fundamental thoughts on the German understanding of the natural world.

They noted with some amusement that Bruno had even pushed the football World Cup, which was being held in Germany, into the background. The diplomats described the wild bear chase that ensued and the doomed mission undertaken by Finnish bear hunters who had been specially flown in for the task. They were almost poetic in their writing: "Early in the morning of that same day, Bruno met his demise at the hands of an (as yet) unnamed hunter."

According to the US diplomats, Bruno had forfeited his right to Bavarian hospitality because he was not "willing to adapt to German culture and traditions," as former Bavarian Interior Minister Günther Beckstein had often required of every other foreigner. And obviously the diplomats did not omit Stoiber's classification of Bruno as a "problem bear."

Germans Prefer Their Nature Tame

The end of a June 30 dispatch from Munich offered the following shrewd analysis: The greatest insight to be gained from the whole Bruno affair was that, although German society liked to appear environmentally friendly and "green," modern Germany still had difficulty relating to untamed nature.


There had not been genuine wildlife in the mountainous parts of Bavaria for generations, the report said. "Nature is good, as long as it is controlled, channeled and subdued," it concluded. The diplomatic prognosis was dim. "If the saga of Bavaria's 'Problem Bear' is any indicator, the strategy of reintroducing wild bears to the Alps, at least the German Alps, may be doomed to failure -- that is, unless the bears are willing to cooperate by not being too wild."

After the death of the bear, the Bavarians occupied themselves in a very Prussian manner with possible successors to Bruno. A "Management Plan for Brown Bears in Bavaria" was developed, complete with concrete tips for hikers, should they happen to accidentally encounter another Bruno at some point in the future. "Under normal circumstances a bear will not attack," one tip helpfully offers. "They will smell you and judge you not to be dangerous." Regardless, hikers should make their presence known to bears by, for example, singing loudly.

But, since Bruno, there hasn't been a single brown bear to have wandered into Germany from abroad. Apparently it didn't take access to the confidential US diplomatic dispatches to get that message across to Italy's bear population.


===================================================================

DISPATCH: FULL TEXT OF THE BRUNO CABLE
Click on the headline in order to read the text ...

June 30, 2006 -- Munich: "Bruno's Last Stand"
Important information about the cables...

<<69936>> 6/30/2006 13:30 06MUNICH397 Consulate Munich UNCLASSIFIED

VZCZCXRO6095 PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ DE RUEHMZ #0397/01 1811330 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 301330Z JUN 06 FM AMCONSUL MUNICH TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3318 INFO RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE TAGS: PGOV, SENV, GM SUBJECT: BRUNO'S LAST STAND -- FIRST WILD BEAR IN 170 YEARS

Unclas section 01 of 02 munich 000397

Sipdis

Sipdis

E.o. 12958: n/a Tags: pgov, senv, gm Subject: bruno's last stand -- first wild bear in 170 years proves too wild for bavaria

------- summary -------

1. Despite all the attention surrounding the World Cup, EADS' woes and health care reform, Bavarians and many Germans have been transfixed by a two-year-old brown bear named "Bruno" that wandered across international borders into Bavaria, a government minister's agenda, a hunter's crosshairs, and the hearts of millions. Following Bruno's government-sanctioned shooting, questions remain over the political fallout and the future of wild bears in the German Alps. The incident also offers a snippet of insight into German attitudes toward the environment. End Summary.

----------------------- a visitor named "bruno" -----------------------

2. The bear, dubbed "Bruno" by the media, began his journey in Italy, where he was released as part of a program to reintroduce brown bears from Slovenia in the Alps. After wandering across the border from Austria, he was first sighted in Bavaria on May 20. As the first wild bear seen in Germany since 1835, Bruno was initially extended a warm public welcome by Bavarian Environment Minister Werner Schnappauf -- after all, Bruno could prove a boon for Bavaria's image just as visitors from around the world arrived for the World Cup.

------------------ the "problem bear" ------------------

3. However, as Bavarian Interior Minister Beckstein has often emphasized, foreigners are only welcome in Bavaria provided they are willing to adapt to German culture and traditions. Bruno quickly wore out his welcome by raiding stables, killing sheep, chickens, and a child's pet rabbit. The Bavarian government declared Bruno "Ursus non Grata" and ordered that he be shot or captured. Vexed by Bruno's unchecked roaming across Bavaria -- he was even seen sitting on the steps of a police station eating a guinea pig -- Minister-President Edmund Stoiber took to referring to him as "the Problem Bear."

4. Nevertheless, Bruno appeared to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the public -- Schnappauf received some 1,300 letters and drawings from children all over Germany appealing for Bruno to be kept alive. Following criticism of the edict that Bruno be shot, Schnappauf gave the animal a stay of execution and, at a cost of over Euro 125,000, flew in a special trap from Colorado and a team of Finnish bear hunters with specially trained dogs. After the Finnish hunters failed at their task, Schnappauf reinstated the shoot-to-kill order effective June 26. Early in the morning of that same day, Bruno met his demise at the hands of an (as yet) unnamed hunter. Bruno, stuffed, is to be put on display at a natural history museum in Munich's Nymphenburg Palace.

----------------------------------- "may his ursine soul rest in peace" -----------------------------------

5. Almost immediately, criticism of the Bavarian government started pouring in from across Bavaria and the world. Minister Schnappauf has received multiple death threats and calls for his resignation. State prosecutors have received nine legal complaints, several against Schnappauf, for alleged breaches of hunting and animal protection laws. Death threats have also been made against the hunter. Schnappauf has defended himself by saying that had Bruno attacked a human, calls for his resignation would be better justified. Future bears, he said, would be welcome in Bavaria, provided they behaved appropriately.

6. The "Bruno" saga has received a disproportional share of press play, including in the international media. The Munich tabloid "TZ," which has devoted no less than eleven cover pages to Bruno since May 21, published an obituary threatening revenge at the voting booth for Bruno's death, and called on people to send protest letters and e-mails to Minister-President Stoiber and Minister Schnappauf. Germany's major tabloid "Bild" even suggested a state funeral for Bruno might be appropriate. "Spiegel Online's" daily updated ""Bruno Watch" included an obituary entitled "A Problem Bear or Bavaria's Problem?" and compared Bruno's death with that of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, and Princess Diana. Mirroring the sentiment of the general public, the piece concluded: "For indeed Bruno was murdered, shot down in the prime of his young life, executed

Munich 00000397 002 of 002

in cold blood. We should reflect now on whether we feel happy with what we have done. We share a collective guilt for Bruno's demise, our inability to co-exist with nature has yet again prompted us to reach for the trigger. Bruno is dead and we are all the poorer for it: May his ursine soul rest in peace."

------- comment -------

7. Bruno has been the media's June flavor of the month. While the attention lavished on Bruno has taken nearly everyone by surprise, we expect the criticism leveled at Schnappauf and Stoiber to be relatively fleeting -- radical animal rights advocates who make death threats aren't generally considered the CSU's base anyway. Perhaps the greatest insight from the whole Bruno affair might be that despite the veneer of "greenness" extolled by German society, modern Germany in fact coexists uneasily with untamed nature. The contrast between the massive hunt for the first wild bear seen in Bavaria in over 170 years and the recent story of a clawless housecat treeing a bear in New Jersey couldn't be much more stark. True wilderness, even in mountainous Bavaria, hasn't really existed in Germany for generations -- nature is good, as long as it is controlled, channeled, and subdued. If the saga of Bavaria's "Problem Bear" is any indicator, the strategy of reintroducing wild bears to the Alps, at least the German Alps, may be doomed to failure -- that is, unless the bears are willing to cooperate by not being too wild.

8. This report has been coordinated with Embassy Berlin.

9. Previous reporting from Munich is available on our SIPRNET website at www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/munich/ .

Rooney

More on LINK

RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS

Photo Gallery: Bavaria's Wild Bear Summer

Orso Problemo: Dino the Bear Divides the Italians (05/11/2010)

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 07.10.2008: Bruno's Half-Brother Spotted Close to German Border

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 26.03.2008: Bruno Finds Final Resting Place in Munich Museum

SPIEGEL 360: The Tragic End of Bruno the Bear

From the Archive: Brown Bear Meets a Tragic End (06/26/2006)

From the Archive: A Problem Bear or Bavaria's Problem? (06/26/2006)

 

[George Wallace]

Putting some names and faces forward as to who leaked what and when:


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

WikiLeaks Cables Fallout


Mole in Germany's FDP Party Comes Forward


12/02/2010
By Severin Weiland
SPIEGEL ONLINE

LINK

The secret is out. The informant, who shared information about negotiations to form Germany's current government coalition with the US ambassador in Berlin, has disclosed his identity to the Free Democratic Party. An FDP spokesman claims there is no evidence he broke the law or passed on any classified material.

Germany's business-friendly Free Democratic Party has identified the top-level national party employee responsible for passing secret information on to US diplomats during the negotiations to form the current German government in 2009. A worker at the party's headquarters who was chief of staff to the FDP chairman, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, came forward and admitted to being the source, an FDP party spokesperson said. The news came after party officials had questioned workers about the issue.

A report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper stated that the person in question is Helmut M., Westerwelle's chief of staff, who was also the head of international relations for the national party. The 42-year-old has been relieved of his current duties, but not fired.

The office of the FDP's executive body confirmed the information to SPIEGEL ONLINE on Thursday. Helmut M. became chief of staff to the chairman of the party in Berlin after Westerwelle became Germany's foreign minister in a coalition government with Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats in 2009. During the coalition talks, Helmut M. had participated as a notetaker, FDP officials stated.

In a cable sent back to Washington that has been published online by WikiLeaks and cited by SPIEGEL, US Ambassador Philip Murphy described the worker as a "young, up-and-coming party loyalist." The cable states that during his meetings at the US Embassy in Berlin, he brought along internal papers from the coalition talks, including participant lists from working groups, schedules and handwritten notes. According to SPIEGEL information, they include, for example, information about an internal dispute over disarmament that took shape during the coalition negotiations.

The case has caused serious concern within the party since the publication of the report in SPIEGEL. In Germany, some are asking if the State Department crossed the line between diplomacy and the kind of intelligence usually associated with the CIA and other foreign intelligence agencies. And the fact that Westerwelle's chief of staff in the party headquarters served as the informant to the US will deal a serious blow to his party. It's now clear why the US ambassador appeared so pleased in his cables back to Washington -- after all, his mole had the ear of the head of the party and was part of the inner circle of party leadership. The motives Helmut M. might have had for sharing potentially sensitive information with the Americans remains a mystery for many inside the party.

'Tragic'

After SPIEGEL published the information over the weekend, FDP party chief Westerwelle declared: "I don't believe this story" as it had been reported. Inside the party, the incident is being described as "tragic," because Helmut M. was a well-liked colleague who was known for being upstanding, smart and an affable person to work with.

In Berlin, rumors have been circling in recent days about five people who might have served as the US informant. On Monday, FDP party boss Westerwelle rejected a suggestion at the meeting of the party's board by his deputy, Economics Minister Rainer Brüderle, that party employees who were involved in the coalition talks submit statements under oath. Instead, Westerwelle expressed his trust in his colleagues, while also announcing that he would be conducting talks with them.

FDP party spokesman Wulf Oehme confirmed on Thursday in Berlin that the party leadership had taken the step of questioning participants in last year's coalition negotiations, a move it believed had been appropriate. "As part of this, an employee of the FDP national party headquarters responsible for international contacts disclosed that he had shared freely available information at his own responsibility and within the context of his work to numerous employees at other parties and that he had also had contact for discussions with the US Embassy." The spokesman said that no secret information had been passed on and that the embassy had not been allowed to view classified documents.

Oehme said the employee in question said he had regretted the impression created in the reporting that he had had any sort of contact that was unusual. "There is no evidence whatsoever of legally questionable behavior," he said.

Still, it appears Helmut M. went a step too far, although it remains unclear how far. According to one cable from the ambassador, the informant offered the material to the diplomats. But in internal questioning at his party, he is said to have claimed that the Americans made a request to him.

Party officials said he would remain an employee at the FDP's national headquarters, but that it had not be determined in what capacity.

More on LINK

SPIEGEL 360: Our Complete Coverage of the WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables

 

[George Wallace]

Is there a shift in direction as to where the US will focus its attentions?


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

US Diplomats in the EU


Manipulating the Political Dwarves of Europe


12/10/2010
By Gregor Peter Schmitz
SPIEGEL ONLINE

LINK

European Union politicians like to see themselves as having global reach. But the US would beg to differ, according to American diplomatic cables from European capitals. Competition between Merkel, Sarkozy and others means it is easy for Washington to play EU leaders off against each other.

It was November 2007 in Texas and the German chancellor was invited to George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford. Only a select few world leaders had been granted such an honor. Even Merkel's husband Joachim Sauer, casually dressed in jeans, accompanied her for the visit to the then-US president, a rarity for a man who seldom accompanies the chancellor on her trips abroad. Merkel, her husband and the Bushes smiled under the Texas sun.


Prior to the visit, though, US diplomats had coolly assembled a cost-benefit analysis. "Merkel is competing with a more dynamic French President (Nicolas) Sarkozy for attention on the international stage," reads a cable from the US Embassy in Berlin. Sarkozy's visit to Washington and his speech before Congress a couple days previous certainly hadn't escaped the German chancellor's notice, the cable notes. A visit to the ranch afforded an opportunity for the German leader to present herself as Europe's most important politician.

One could, however, exact a price for the visit, the memo suggested. Bush could demand progress on certain key issues in return -- on Germany's involvement in Afghanistan, for example.

Especially Susceptible

Pressure, requests, playing various parties off each other -- the memo concerning Merkel's ranch visit offers insight into America's handling of Europe. The continent, which would so dearly love to retain its role as Washington's most important ally, is no longer taken so seriously by those responsible for US foreign policy. European leaders are seen as political dwarves, not least because they let themselves be played off against one another so easily.

Nicolas Sarkozy is considered especially susceptible to influence. A memo from the US Embassy in Paris prior to the status-conscious French president's first official visit to Washington in 2007 reads, "'Sarkozy the American' is a well-known epithet long applied to France's new president.... The US was the only other country Sarkozy mentioned by name in his victory statement." When Barack Obama, then a presidential candidate, traveled to Paris in July 2008, another dispatch notes, Sarkozy hastily rearranged his schedule just to be able to hold a press conference with Obama. He "is hoping for intense and regular contact with President Obama," the dispatch reads.

A document from the US Embassy in Great Britain expresses similar sentiments about then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- a document created shortly after Brown took office. The dispatch noted that the new prime minister didn't want to be seen as Bush's "poodle," as his predecessor Tony Blair had been. Here too, though, the conclusion was that, "he wants -- and knows that Britain needs -- a strong relationship with the US administration."

Everyone wants something from Washington, it would seem -- and the US looks down on the Europeans as a result. The administration of Bush's successor Obama thus feels confident about ignoring European wishes or playing politicians off against one another. "Officials in Washington know better than anyone how European leaders compete for an audience with the president or secretary of state," says British historian Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford University. "The silly game is the same."

Less than Thrilled

Obama himself considers the game especially absurd. Raised partly in Indonesia and with no personal ties to Europe, the president pays little attention to trans-Atlantic sensibilities. Instead, he looks to Asia and speaks of a "Pacific century."

During a 2009 visit to Europe, the American president chose to spend a quiet evening in the company of friends, rather than publicly celebrating trans-Atlantic unity with Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni. The French president was less than thrilled. For his visit with Gordon Brown, Obama had a DVD collection of old movies on hand as a present for his host. But the president had difficulty using the term "special relationship" to describe the bond between London and Washington.

The diplomatic memos now reveal just how coolly Obama's diplomats toy with European vanities -- at a time when many in Europe had succumbed to Obama-mania. A photo opportunity with the most powerful man in the world was a political jackpot.

American diplomats, for example, had the following to say about Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and his ministers: "For domestic political reasons, they intensely want a US-EU summit, and the lack of a Presidential visit would be seen as a major failure of Zapatero." The desire for an Obama visit on the part of the prime minister could be used to serve America's own interests, the memo further analyzed -- by requiring Spain to provide concrete help with Afghanistan, Iran or Guantanamo in exchange for Obama's attendance at the summit, for example.

Not Enough

Zapatero had, as it happens, already sent additional soldiers to Afghanistan during his first term in office and his country had also agreed to accept five prisoners from Guantanamo.

But it wasn't enough. Shortly before the summit, as European leaders were quarrelling over seating arrangements at the dinner with Obama, the president abruptly cancelled his participation, citing his busy schedule. One can do such things with the Europeans. The US news magazine Time had only recently run a cover story called "The Incredible Shrinking Europe."

The financial crisis and the problems with the euro only strengthened US skepticism. Europe's uncoordinated response to the debt crisis served to prove the US belief that Europe lacked a leader. The complaint from former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that Europe lacked a telephone number, the dispatches make clear, is as applicable as ever.

One diplomatic memo, dated December 2009, attempted to make sense of the "troika," the collection of leaders that represents the European Union in foreign affairs. "At present … the EU has four distinct parties in the room: the Presidency country (Sweden), the incoming Presidency (Spain), the Commission and the Council Secretariat. Under the Lisbon Treaty, troika attendance is expected to be consolidated under the delegated chair of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy ... Catherine Ashton," the memo reads. Any questions?

'Omnipresence and Hyper-Activity'


As for Ashton, a politician supposedly empowered to represent the EU in talks with the US, the American foreign policy establishment holds no illusions: "The deal appears to have been reached after British Prime Minister Brown realized he could not maintain Tony Blair's candidacy for the President's job." In other words, the Americans see the EU's top diplomat as a candidate born of internal intrigue.

Ashton aside, the US doesn't see a clear leader in Europe.


■Angela Merkel? She is strong, US diplomats note, but largely because her opponents are so weak.


■Nicolas Sarkozy? "His omnipresence and hyper-activity risk overexposure." Plus, the diplomats continued, the French president had intimidated those closest to him to such a degree that there was hardly anyone who would even tell him if he "is less than fully dressed." According to a cable from December 2009, US sources in the presidential palace, the Elysée, said that Sarkozy's plane once made a detour so that he didn't have to see the Eiffel Tower lit up in the colors of the Turkish flag. The Parisian mayor had instigated the light show to impress his guest, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.


■And David Cameron, Brown's successor as the guardian of British-American relations? The new British prime minister, American diplomats reported after a conversation with a high-ranking British banker, was politically small-minded and lacking in substance.

The only thing that can help this situation is European humility. British foreign minister, William Hague, has said: "The world has changed and if we do not change with it, Britain's role is set to decline." The new coalition in London now avoids using the term "special relationship."

Related articles

Trans-Atlantic Relations

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

WikiLeaks supporters’ group abandons cyber attacks



By Georgina Prodhan, Reuters

December 11, 2010 11:02 AM
Ottawa Citizen

LINK


LONDON, Dec 11 (Reuters) - A loose grouping of cyber activists supporting WikiLeaks has abandoned its strategy of online attacks on organisations seen as hostile to the site in favour of spreading the leaked documents far and wide online.

Internet activists operating under the name “Anonymous” temporarily brought down this week the websites of credit card giants MasterCard and Visa — both of which had stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks.

The United States, enraged and embarrassed by WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables, has leant on organisations from Amazon to online payments service PayPal — which have now withdrawn services to WikiLeaks.

In an overnight blog post, Anonymous announced a change of strategy, saying it now aimed to publish parts of the confidential U.S. diplomatic cables as widely as possible and in ways that made them as hard as possible to trace.

The cyber activists briefly brought down PayPal’s official blog by bombarding it with requests this week but failed to harm retail and Web-hosting giant Amazon, which withdrew its services to WikiLeaks more than a week ago.

“We have, at best, given them a black eye. The game has changed. When the game changes, so too must our strategies,” said the blog post announcing “Operation: Leakspin.”

The activists are now encouraging supporters to search through leaked cables on the WikiLeaks site and publish summaries of ones that have been least exposed, labelling them so they are hard to find by any authority seeking to quash them.

“Use misleading tags, everything from “Tea Party” to “Bieber.” Post snippets of the leaks everywhere,” the blog said, referring to the U.S. grassroots conservative movement and the 16-year-old Canadian pop phenomenon Justin Bieber.

Similar strategies have been used in the past on YouTube and the now defunct Napster by users seeking to share video and music while dodging copyright crackdowns.

The activists had previously been using denial of service attacks, in which they bombarded the Web servers of the perceived enemies of WikiLeaks with requests that crashed the sites, in an operation named “Operation Payback.”


© Copyright (c) Reuters

 

[57Chevy]

WikiLeaks 'hacktivists': Freedom defenders or nerd supremacists?

LOS ANGELES - Rafix was set to attack. The target: Visa.com. The weapon: a battery of personal computers ready to jam the site with millions of simultaneous log-in requests.

"FIRE AT WILL, gentlemen!" Rafix wrote in an online message. "Enjoy the EPIC battle of GLORY!"

Within seconds of the battle cry, the attackers crippled the website of the world's largest credit card company. Unable to weather the massive surge in traffic, Visa's site was out of commission for most of the day.

Visa came under fire for its decision to suspend the processing of donations to WikiLeaks, the controversial website that has been publishing confidential U.S. government documents. The attack was co-ordinated through an Internet chat room where more than 1,000 online activists were signed in, massing for the call to fire.

Angry about what they saw as an infringement of Internet freedom, hacker activists also launched successful attacks Wednesday on websites for MasterCard, PayPal, Swiss bank Post-Finance and the Swedish prosecutor leading the sexual assault case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The "hacktivists," working under the banner of Operation Payback, are part of a new breed of online protesters who say they are ready to engage in acts of cyber-disobedience against major corporations, politicians and religious institutions, all in the name of defending their ideals.

But some believe that these digital crusaders are more interested in using their skills to do damage than they are in making a political statement.

"What I'm seeing in my nerd brethren is an increasing combativeness, a loss of empathy and creepiness," said Jaron Lanier, a critic of digital culture and a pioneering computer scientist who helped develop virtual reality.

"It's just another supremacy movement, ultimately. It just happens to be nerd supremacy."

The membership of these groups is fluid, and tends to consist of unidentified Internet denizens, giving rise to the catchall name their members use: Anonymous.

The code name Rafix probably was created moments before the attack.

Their tactic of choice is the "distributed denial of service" attack, a kind of Internet blitz that comes when the attackers try to jam a company's website by getting large numbers of computers to contact it at the same time, a bit like a group of pickets blocking the entrance to a grocery store.

In the latest incidents, the attackers made use of a specially designed hacker weapon dubbed the "Low Orbit Ion Cannon" after a space laser in the Star Wars movies.

The Cannon, actually a software program anyone could download, allowed the group's leaders to take control of members' computers in order to aim them, en masse, at target websites.

"Corrupt governments of the world," began a recent message on the group's YouTube site. "To move to censor content on the Internet based on your own prejudice is, at best, laughably impossible, at worst, morally reprehensible."

Hacking has been around as long as the Internet, but has generally been the province of vandals, organized criminals or programmers simply flaunting their technical prowess, said Marc Cooper, a professor at USC's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

"This is the first time we're really seeing a mass movement of cyber-sabotage with political overtones," he said.

"Whatever the legality and morality, I think it has an undeniable Robin Hood type of resonance with lots of people."

As is true of WikiLeaks, the members of Anonymous come from many countries, work in secret and often set their own rules, haranguing adversaries by barraging websites, breaking into email accounts and posting targets' personal information on the Web.

This year, the sites of the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America were brought down temporarily by attackers furious about the organizations' efforts to stop online file-sharing.

Law enforcement authorities say these attacks, which can cause severe disruption to businesses, can easily cross the line from demonstration to criminal action.

On Thursday, Dutch police arrested a 16-year-old boy for participating in the attack against Visa as well as one against MasterCard. The boy confessed to participating in the assaults, according to a statement from the Netherlands' national prosecutor.

Last month, 22-year-old David Kernell was sentenced to one year in prison for breaking into the personal email account of then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in 2008 and posting some of her emails online. Kernell had been allied with a message board called 4Chan that is a frequent gathering place for Anonymous agitators.

And last year, a New Jersey man pleaded guilty to having launched an attack against the Church of Scientology's website in 2008.

In an online manifesto, Anonymous members quoted Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow, who had sent out a tweet last week saying, "The first serious info war is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops."

Reached by phone this week, Barlow said he was impressed by how quickly Anonymous had organized against its foes, but said he did not condone the attacks.

"I don't think that if you're trying to convey the right to know, the answer is to shut somebody up," said Barlow, who is a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

To be sure, the group also encouraged people to promote Assange's cause via Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other means, noting that "social networking sites are critical hubs of information distribution."

But Anonymous' Twitter and Facebook accounts were themselves suspended.

Facebook said the account owners were violating its terms of use by promoting the attacks.
article link
                      (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[GAP]

WikiLeaks boss put in isolation
Court date Tuesday; U.S. suspects Myanmar building nukes: new cable
By GUY JACKSON, AFP December 11, 2010
Article Link

Police moved WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange to the segregation unit of a London jail for his safety, his lawyer said yesterday, as new cables showed the United States suspects Myanmar has a secret nuclear program.

The 39-year-old Australian has been transferred from the main part of Wandsworth prison to an isolation unit, said Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange's legal team.

"The prison authorities are doing it for his own safety, presumably," she told Agence France-Presse.

Assange is to appear in a London court Tuesday for a second time after being arrested on a warrant issued by Sweden, where prosecutors want to speak to him about allegations of rape and sexual molestation made by two women.

WikiLeaks insists the allegations are politically motivated, because the whistleblowing website has enraged Washington and governments around the world by releasing thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables.

Robinson complained that Assange "does not get any recreation" in the prison and "has difficulties getting phone calls out. ... He is on his own."

Assange, a former computer hacker, is not allowed to have a laptop computer in his cell, but his lawyers have requested one.

"We are trying to prepare a legal appeal and he has difficulties hand writing, so it would be much easier to assist us in the preparation if he had a laptop," Robinson said, although she did not elaborate on why he had difficulties writing.

Cables released overnight by WikiLeaks showed Washington has suspected for years that Myanmar has a secret nuclear program supported by North Korea, with witnesses reporting suspicious activity dating back to 2004.
More on link