 |
WikiLeaks: Cablegate resumes while Assange faces threats |
Insurance files and News Corp.
In an exclusive interview with The New Statesman, Julian Assange said the widely downloaded insurance file released by WikiLeaks contains 504 U.S. cables on one broadcasting organization, as well as files on media mogul Rupert Murdoch and News Corp.
Nearly 1.4GB in size, the file started circulating in July of 2010 on BitTorrent sites and is the source of a large amount of speculation. Given its size, the file is likely to contain both text and media, such as video and audio. No one knows the contents for certain however, and Assange’s comments to The New Statesman are sure to fuel the debate.
Called the 'poison pill', the insurance file is protected by AES 256-bit encryption. The key to unlock it will only be released in the event that Assange is assassinated or detained. In the unlikely event that WikiLeaks faces permanent removal from the Internet, the insurance file will be its final release.
Some have called the insurance file blackmail, and noted that it hurts the credibility of the organization. In an interview with the BBC, Mark Stephens, Assange’s U.K. lawyer, argued that this isn’t true, saying:
“They need to protect themselves. This is what they believe to be a thermo-nuclear device effectively in the electronic age.”
To date, Assange’s arrest and his home detention have not been cause enough to release the key. As was the case around the time of his bail hearing, when Assange returns to court next month, there is speculation that depending on how things go, the archive could be unlocked.
The U.S. State Department is still investigating Assange for conspiracy or espionage charges, though there have been no formal charges. Addressing this, Assange told The New Statesman that this probe is causing some fear in the media.
“I think what's emerging in the mainstream media is the awareness that if I can be indicted, other journalists can, too,” he said.
“Even The New York Times is worried. This used not to be the case,” he added. “If a whistleblower was prosecuted, publishers and reporters were protected by the First Amendment, which journalists took for granted. That's being lost.”
In the meantime, Cablegate is moving forward. Eight pages of new documents were released on Thursday. The New Statesman interview is on stands now, outtakes of which can be read here.
U.S. uses Twitter to target WikiLeaks
On December 14, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia to issue an order under seal to Twitter. In the order, the DOJ said it was looking for information on accounts linked to WikiLeaks, as it was “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation”. The court duly agreed.
As such, it ordered Twitter to deliver information on the main WikiLeaks account, and the personal accounts maintained by Birgitta Jonsdottir (a member of the Icelandic parliament), Rob Gonggrijp (a past WikiLeaks supporter), and Jacob Appelbaum (who also worked with WikiLeaks).
Moreover, included in the list were Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, even though they do not have publically known accounts.
Given that the order was under seal, Twitter had three days to comply and could not tell the referenced users about the legal request. It could have gone about its business, delivered the information, and told no one. Instead, the whistleblower fought the order and were able to unseal it, allowing it to warn those listed by the court in order for them to seek legal advice.
Ryan Singel at Wired said it best when he wrote that Twitter beta-tested a spine.
“[Twitter] briefly carried the torch for its users during that crucial period when, because of the gag order, its users couldn’t carry it themselves. The company’s action in asking for the gag order to be overturned sets a new precedent that we can only hope that other companies begin to follow,” Singel reported.
“Even more remarkable, Twitter’s move comes as a litany of companies, including PayPal, Mastercard, VISA and Bank of America, follow the political winds away from the First Amendment, banning donations to WikiLeaks. And Amazon.com voluntarily threw the site off its hosting platform, even though there’s nothing illegal in publishing classified documents.”
Singel’s report was followed by one at Fast Company, which asked an important question, namely why was Twitter the only company to challenge the court’s sealed request?
“…other tech companies may also have received similar WikiLeaks-related requests. But what is unusual in this story is that Twitter resisted. Which raises an interesting question: Assuming that Twitter was not the only company to have been served a secret subpoena order, why was it the only company that fought back? The answer might lie in the figure leading Twitter’s legal efforts, Alexander Macgillivray (right), an incredibly mild mannered (really) but sharp-as-a-tack cyber law expert,” the story noted.
Fast Company’s story hinges on the speculation that Google and Facebook received similar orders. The reasoning is that the U.S. Department of Justice wouldn’t go fishing in just one pond when there are other places to gather information.
Legal outline leads to hyped headlines
Assange might fear execution, but that wasn’t the main point of the outline released by his attorney. Earlier this week, Assange’s lawyer released a skeletal outline of arguments for the court’s extradition hearing next month. The outline itself is 35 pages long and centers on seven points.
However, the majority of the press coverage of the outline has focused on a single aspect of point seven, which argues that Assange’s human rights may be violated if he is extradited.
Specifically, point seven of the outline says that Assange reserves the right to argue that his extradition may be incompatible with 'Articles 3, 6, 8 and 10' of the European Commission on Human Rights.
“It is submitted that there is a real risk that, if extradited to Sweden, the US will seek his extradition and/or illegal rendition to the USA, where there will be a real risk of him being detained at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, in conditions which would breach Article 3 of the ECHR.
Indeed, if Mr. Assange were rendered to the USA, without assurances that the death penalty would not be carried out, there is a real risk that he could be made subject to the death penalty. It is well-known that prominent figures have implied, if not stated outright, that Mr. Assange should be executed.”
The bulk of the legal outline centers on the facts in the case, as the defense sees them.
Namely, that the Swedish prosecutor isn’t authorized to issue European Arrest Warrants (EAWs). In the event that she is authorized to issue them, she was wrong to do so anyway, as EAWs are for prosecution and Assange was wanted for questioning only. The third and fourth points hang on abuse of process and non-disclosure by the Swedish prosecution.
In the fifth point, the outline argues that the offences listed in the EAW for Assange are not of a serious nature in the U.K., so there is no standing for extradition. The sixth and final point overlooked by the majority of the media focuses on Assange being punished for his political opinions and that a trial would therefore be prejudicial.
Headlines draw readers, and the more sensational the headline, the more readers you attract. It is no surprise to see the fear of execution leading the coverage of court documents, but there is much more going on behind the scenes in this trial.
You can view the entire document yourself, courtesy of Assange’s legal team, via the FSI website.
Assange is due to appear in court on February 7 and 8.
U.S. Representative asks Treasury Secretary for sanctions
According to a Dow Jones report, U.S. Representative Peter T. King asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a letter on Wednesday to prohibit people and companies within the U.S. from doing business with Wikileaks.
King, the Republican who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, argued that the ban would also extend to Julian Assange. Directly, he asked that WikiLeaks and Assange be placed on the Treasury’s Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons List.
This list is used to prevent organizations and individuals under U.S. jurisdiction from doing business with or supporting those placed on the list. Placement on the list is normally reserved for terrorists and dictators.
“The U.S. government simply cannot continue its ineffective piecemeal approach of responding in the aftermath of Wikileaks' damage,” the letter said in part. “The U.S. government should be making every effort to strangle the viability of Assange's organization.”
In a statement condemning the move, Julian Assange said King “wants to put a Cuban style trade embargo around the truth—forced on US citizens at the point of a gun.”
“WikiLeaks is a publishing organization. It is time to cut through the bluster. There is no allegation by the US government or any other party, that WikiLeaks has hurt anyone, at any time during its four-year publishing history, as a result of anything it has published. Very few news organizations can say as much.”
“WikiLeaks has ‘terrorized’ politicians from Kenya to Kansas over the last four years. Quite a few have lost office as a result. That doesn’t mean we are ‘terrorists’ - it means we doing our job. We intend to ‘terrorize’ Peter King, Hillary Clinton, corrupt CEOs and all the rest for many years to come, because that is what the people of the world demand.” Assange continued.
“By targeting WikiLeaks and the US publisher Knopf for economic censorship, King reveals his abiding hatred for the US constitution. When the founding fathers wrote, ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’, they did not provide an exception for blustering fools like Peter T. King.”
Bank of America remains top target for next leak
CNBC is reporting that insiders suggest the Bank of America is likely to be the subject of the next major document leak by WikiLeaks.
“Despite Assange's refusal to name the bank, the consensus has long held that Bank of America is the target,” it claims.
“The initial guessing was supported by an interview Assange gave a year earlier, where he mentioned having a hard-drive that once belonged to a Bank of America executive. Our source has confirmed that Bank of America is indeed the target of the next big leak. The source couldn't elaborate on the materials held by Assange.”
When word of a potential leak aimed at Bank of America surfaced, the financial giant shifted into damage control. The New York Times reported that between 15 and 20 bank officials had begun hunting through records and internal documents in an attempt to discover what information could be exposed. In addition, they were checking asset records in an effort to locate missing laptops and other equipment, including investigating network breaches.
In an interview given in December, Assange spoke about the aforementioned drive, telling The Times of London that the banking information he possessed was “enough to make the bosses of a major bank resign.”
Source: WikiLeaks: Cablegates resumes while Assange faces threats
 |
