+1. You have to love the internet

Also, that's another reason why he should release the Murdoch stuff quicker

No they are particularly thick.

Assange traveled in drag to evade gov spooks

Julian Assange's wariness of government spooks ran so high that the WikiLeaks founder resorted to disguising himself as a woman when traveling, according to a profile published Monday by The Guardian.

As Assange's entourage moved from London to the village of Ellingham, the battered red car they rode in periodically pulled off the road with lights killed to make sure it wasn't being followed.

“You can't imagine how ridiculous it was,” James Ball, a one-time volunteer for WikiLeaks, said of the 6-foot-2-inch Assange. “He'd stayed dressed up as an old woman for more than two hours.”

The 2,700-word feature travels a fair amount of ground that by now is familiar to many. As a child growing up in Australia, the nomadic Assange attended no fewer than 37 schools, was estranged from his birth father, and as a teen took an early liking to a Commodore 64, which opened up the world of hacking. In 1991, Assange and two hacking acquaintances targeted the US military's MILNET. Assange would later claim he had total control over the network for more than two years, thanks to a backdoor he found.

He eventually pleaded guilty to 24 counts of hacking. Prosecutors said Assange's motive was “simply an arrogance and a desire to show off his computer skills.”

The profile said Assange's biological father, one John Shipton, was largely missing from his son's life until age 25.

“Later they met, with Julian discovering he had inherited his architect father's highly logical and dispassionate intellect,” The Guardian said. “One friend said Shipton was 'like a mirror shining back at Julian.'”

When Assange registered the wikileaks.org domain name in 2006, he did so under Shipton's name.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/01 ... e_profile/

I await the Murdoch-press version

NY Times Editor Says He's 'Alarmed' By The Idea That The US Might Try To Prosecute Wikileaks

One of the more frustrating things about the press's reaction to Wikileaks was that so many of them tried to shy away from the fact that the same laws that protected them as journalists almost certainly protected Wikileaks as well -- and any legal attack on the organization or someone like Julian Assange could come back to haunt the journalists themselves. So it's nice to see NY Times executive editor Bill Keller (who has detailed his contentious relationship with Wikileaks and Assange) finally come out and say that he would be alarmed by any legal action taken against Wikileaks:

"It's very hard to conceive of a prosecution of Julian Assange that wouldn't stretch the law in a way that would be applicable to us," said Keller. "Whatever one thinks of Julian Assange, certainly American journalists, and other journalists, should feel a sense of alarm at any legal action that tends to punish Assange for doing essentially what journalists do. That is to say, any use of the law to criminalize the publication of secrets."

The panel, where this was being discussed, also included former Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith (now a Harvard Law Professor) who has spoken out in the past saying that he believes Wikileaks is legal. He noted that any lawsuit would be very difficult to pull off. He still thinks the administration will try to bring a lawsuit, but he expects that it will eventually fail in the courts. I'm still hopeful that the administration recognizes the likelihood of failure in any lawsuit and recognizes the dreadful legacy it will leave in suing an organization for publishing leaks.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201102 ... eaks.shtml

I bet he's more than 'alarmed', until recently I'd have assumed even the US elite wouldn't be stupid enough to publicly sabotage and call whistle-blowers terrorists, but...

If they prosecute Wikileaks then any other newspaper or blogger could be charged with anything that any prosecutor wishes. America will be one step closer to being a authoritarian police state. Though they are doing a pretty good job on that score already.

The story behind Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy - video

The Guardian's Alan Rusbridger, David Leigh and Luke Harding on the book that charts Julian Assange and WikiLeaks' transformation from rebel hackers to global celebrities

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2 ... sange-book

Spot the Monty Python reference that's dying to be wheeled out in the vid

That doesn't half look like a cheap cash-in on the Guardian's position

EFF, ACLU Fighting Gov't Attempt To Troll Twitter Accounts For Wikileaks Info

from the fed-trolling dept

At the beginning of January, thanks to Twitter pushing back against a gag order and request from the feds to hand over info of people connected to Wikileaks, it came out publicly that the government was seeking such info. Of course, the government almost certainly sent similar requests to a bunch of other companies that simply rolled over. However, thanks to Twitter's willingness to stand up to the government, it's allowed the folks whose info was sought to fight back, though the initial steps in that fighting back were apparently gagged as well.

Thankfully, part of the gag has been lifted, and we now know that the EFF and the ACLU are challenging the info request and are seeking to have more documents in the case unsealed as well, including the Justice Department's original application for the order -- which should explain the reason for requesting the info. Who knows if the court will grant this, but once again, none of this would even be open for discussion if Twitter had just rolled over and handed the feds the info they demanded.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201102 ... info.shtml

I think most governments are gonna regret ever hearing the Wikileaks name...

Or Twitter.

Heh, yeah. That sort of thing is the one time I'm not sick of hearing about FB groups too

Most times I ignore Facebook groups.

Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True

from the that's-called-denial-folks dept

Last month, there were already reports that the Justice Department was having trouble linking Bradley Manning to Julian Assange -- a key piece necessary to charge Assange with any sort of crime. US investigators have known for a long time that if they can't get such evidence, they don't have much of a case. Back in December, it was reported that they had even offered Manning a plea deal if he would just implicate Assange. The only problem: it appears he's not willing to do so, and there's no other evidence. In fact, all the evidence suggests what everyone said from the beginning: Manning decided to take whatever documents he took himself, and whoever uploaded it to Wikileaks (and it's still not confirmed that it was Manning, though he's obviously the most likely) did so of their own free will, not because of pressure from Assange.

The latest reports (via Julian Sanchez) suggest more of the same. The Justice Department is trying really, really hard to link the two, but seems to be quietly admitting that there may be no "there" there, and because of that, there may be no case. What's really stunning however, is that despite all of this work to try to find a simple link, and the lack of any evidence of that link, the Defense Department is still insisting that the link is there and that Assange must be charged.

I find this pretty interesting. I'm assuming the view of DoD officials is clouded by the fact that Manning, by being in the armed services, was a part of the DoD and that they can't accept the idea that he might honestly believe there were wrongdoings that needed to be exposed. They insist that Assange must have preyed on him and pushed and cajoled him into sharing the info. Of course, now the big question is what will the government do. Without this link, there's no case against Assange. So either they try some other, exceptionally weak claim. Or... the give up. They should know what the right option is, but somehow I doubt they'll choose wisely.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201102 ... true.shtml

Best of luck to him.

People become whistleblowers because they are disgusted by the things that they discover. So if an organisation does exceptionally bad things people will blow the whistle on them.

Shill charges are just shilly.

Sorry, I'll get my coat.

WikiLeaks' Assange 'very likely' to lose extradition fight

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/23 ... edictions/

At most they'll get a temporary victory overall, then anything he and Wikileaks does will have even more impact - they've already inspired other groups ffs, and the media loves a good narrative...