The termination of the Swedish investigation is, in one sense, good news for Assange. But it is unlikely to change his inability to leave the embassy any time soon. If anything, given the apparent determination of the Trump administration to put him in a U.S. prison cell for the “crime” of publishing documents, his freedom appears further away than it has since 2010, when the Swedish case began.
Yesterday, WikiLeaks released its latest batch of pilfered CIA material, five documents describing malicious software for taking over Apple MacBooks and iPhones, and wrote in an accompanying post that “the CIA has been infecting the iPhone supply chain of its targets,” prompting concerned readers to wonder if their iPhone or MacBook had been infected on the factory floor. In a statement, Apple says that is almost certainly not the case.
WikiLeaks tweeted last week that Assange would agree to US extradition if Obama granted Manning clemency. Asked during a web broadcast on Thursday if he would now leave the embassy, Assange said: “I stand by everything I said, including the offer to go to the United States if Chelsea Manning’s sentence was commuted.”
At the time of her revelations, she was the most important whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg. Upon hearing the news today, Ellsberg said this: “Once in a while, someone does what they ought to do. Some go to prison for it, for seven years; some accept exile for life. But sometimes even a president does it. And today, it was Obama.”
Earlier on Wednesday, Maria Zakharova, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, wrote on Facebook that Snowden’s right to stay had recently been extended “by a couple of years”. Her post came in response to a suggestion from the former acting CIA director Michael Morell that Vladimir Putin might hand over Snowden to the US, despite there being no extradition treaty between the countries.
The White House insisted on Tuesday that Assange’s offer to submit to extradition if Obama “grants Manning clemency” did not influence the president’s action.
WikiLeaks, definida por su fundador, Julian Assange como “una gran biblioteca de la rebelión”, lleva diez años publicando más información secreta que todos los demás medios de prensa combinados. Las revelaciones informaron al público sobre tratados secretos, vigilancia masiva, ataques contra civiles, torturas y asesinatos cometido por los gobiernos de EE.UU. y otros países.
One of the very few remaining avenues for learning what the U.S. government is doing — beyond the propaganda that it wants Americans to ingest and thus deliberately disseminates through media outlets — is leaking and whistleblowing. Among the leading U.S. heroes in the war on terror have been the men and women inside various agencies of the U.S. government who discovered serious wrongdoing being carried out in secret, and then risked their own personal welfare to ensure that the public learned of what never should have been hidden in the first place.
Contrary to a denial by Yahoo and a report by the New York Times, the company’s scanning program, revealed earlier this week by Reuters, provided the government with a custom-built back door into the company’s mail service — and it was so sloppily installed that it posed a privacy hazard for hundreds of millions of users, according to a former Yahoo employee with knowledge of the company’s security practices.
By what legal authority do the National Security Agency and the FBI ask Yahoo to search its users’ emails? Neither the government nor the tech company would say, after Reuters first reported on Tuesday that Yahoo “secretly built a custom software program” it used on behalf of the NSA and CIA to scan customer emails.
Finally, Yahoo’s possible betrayal of its users is another example of why whistleblowers and leaks to the press are so important. The US government considers this type of surveillance “legal” even though it shocks the conscience of many ordinary Americans and dozens of civil liberties groups have been attempting to have courts rule it illegal for years.
Yahoo last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers’ incoming emails for specific information provided by US intelligence officials, sources have told Reuters.The company complied with a classified US government directive, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency (NSA) or FBI, said two former employees and a third person who knew about the programme.
in the heart of the tranquil English countryside, is the National Security Agency’s largest overseas spying base. Originally used to monitor Soviet communications through the Cold War, its focus has since dramatically shifted, and today it is a vital part of the NSA’s sprawling global surveillance network.
El Poder Ejecutivo anunció hace algunas semanas que se encuentra negociando un tratado de libre comercio con Chile, cuyo texto final pretende firmar en setiembre u octubre y remitirlo al parlamento para su ratificación. La celeridad y secretismo de la negociación hacen temer que el parlamento tenga que actuar sobre una lógica de hechos consumados, sin discusión previa ni apropiación de la temática por parte de la sociedad.
Important Update: Michael Best has now come out and said that it was actually he who uploaded the files in question, which he got from the somewhat infamous (i.e., hacked the Hacking Team) hacker Phineas Fisher. Through a somewhat convoluted set of circumstances, it appeared the files were associated with the Wikileaks leak when they were not — and then basically everyone just started calling each other names:
Cada cierto tiempo surgen nuevas noticias que dan cuenta de cómo hackers y whistleblowers develan información de interés público, usualmente política. Incluso en algunos países latinoamericanos se han creado plataformas que permiten hacer denuncias anónimas, siguiendo la misma tendencia. Esta actividad ha venido a suplir la falta de canales formales de acceso a la información pública, pero pueden presentar algunos problemas.
“La gestión de los Papeles de Panamá es un ataque a nuestro modelo”, asegura el fundador de Wikileaks, muy crítico con el Consorcio Internacional de Periodistas de Investigación que ha publicado esta última gran filtración”Los medios establecidos tienen que limitarse constantemente bajo los poderes del establishment, los poderes del Estado al que pertenecen”, dice Assange en esta entrevista con eldiario.es en la Embajada de Ecuador en Londres
Experiencia personal respecto a la fuga de datos del Qatar National Bank, el banco más grande en la Península Arábica.
Escrito por los periodistas alemanes Bastian Obermayer y Frederik Obermaier, del diario alemán Süddeutsche Zeitung –que fueron los primeros en investigar el caso–, “Los papeles de Panamá. El club mundial de los evasores de impuestos”, revela cómo, a partir de un mail anónimo, develaron un escándalo que incluía a ministros, presidentes, dictadores, jeques, emires, reyes, mafiosos, agentes secretos, funcionarios de la FIFA, aristócratas, artistas, ases del fútbol y multimillonarios.
A former Pentagon investigator has spoken on record to the Guardian about major privacy and security lapses within the government’s whistleblower program. John Crane, who for 25 years worked for the Department of Defense inspector general’s office, which helps federal employees expose abuse and corruption, says whistleblowers like Edward Snowden had little choice but to go outside the system. His revelations can now be made public for the first time
SIDtoday is the internal newsletter for the NSA’s most important division, the Signals Intelligence Directorate. After editorial review, The Intercept is releasing nine years’ worth of newsletters in batches, starting with 2003. The agency’s spies explain a surprising amount about what they were doing, how they were doing it, and why.
From the time we began reporting on the archive provided to us in Hong Kong by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, we sought to fulfill his two principal requests for how the materials should be handled: that they be released in conjunction with careful reporting that puts the documents in context and makes them digestible to the public, and that the welfare and reputations of innocent people be safeguarded. As time has gone on, The Intercept has sought out new ways to get documents from the archive into the hands of the public, consistent with the public interest as originally conceived.Today, The Intercept is announcing two innovations in how we report on and publish these materials. Both measures are designed to ensure that reporting on the archive continues in as expeditious and informative a manner as possible, in accordance with the agreements we entered into with our source about how these materials would be disclosed, a framework that he, and we, have publicly described on numerous occasions.
Lo nuevo en los documentos liberados son las sociedades que Mossack Fonseca creó para los protagonistas del “Caso Chispas”. Ciper señala que estos muestran que tanto José Yuraszeck como los otros seis ejecutivos de la compañía chilena que se beneficiaron con la millonaria operación, formaron simultáneamente sociedades “offshore”, las que fueron creadas por el estudio de abogados de Panamá. Las transferencias que se instruyeron desde Chile habrían alcanzado a US$86,5 millones. De acuerdo al relato del centro de investigación periodística, en esas operaciones fue clave el estudio jurídico Prieto y Cía., fundado en 1977 por el reconocido abogado –y consejero legal de ICARE– Patricio Prieto Sánchez.
Many academic publishers offer programs to help researchers in poor countries access papers, but only one, called Share Link, seemed relevant to the papers that Rahimi sought. It would require him to contact authors individually to get links to their work, and such links go dead 50 days after a paper’s publication. The choice seemed clear: Either quit the Ph.D. or illegally obtain copies of the papers. So like millions of other researchers, he turned to Sci-Hub, the world’s largest pirate website for scholarly literature. Rahimi felt no guilt. As he sees it, high-priced journals “may be slowing down the growth of science severely.”
Los datos de 93.4 millones de votantes mexicanos se filtraron y publicaron en el servidor de Amazon Cloud. Se trata de identificaciones básicas, fotografías y direcciones del 75% de la población mexicana. El investigador Chris Vickery dio con la información. No estaba protegida por contraseñas, no estaba en venta y cualquiera la podía bajar. Hizo lo posible por retirarla cuanto antes. Denunció ante Amazon, alertó al Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos y previno a la Embajada de México en Estados Unidos. Le hicieron poco caso.
The whistleblower behind the Panama Papers broke their silence on Friday to explain in detail how the injustices of offshore tax havens drove them to the biggest data leak in history.The source, whose identity and gender remain a secret, denied being a spy.“For the record, I do not work for any government or intelligence agency, directly or as a contractor, and I never have. My viewpoint is entirely my own.”
En 2010, el ejército estadounidense detuvo a una de sus analistas de inteligencia por filtrar documentos clasificados sobre las guerras de Irak y Afganistán a Wikileaks; hoy cumple una condena de 35 años de prisión. “Me llevaron a un solitario agujero negro de confinamiento. Dos semanas después empecé a pensar en suicidarme”, recuerda.
There have been two main responses to the leak of the Panama Papers.The first has been a great shrug of indifference: so what? The rich and powerful do things that only the rich and powerful can do. The second is a warm, indeed enthusiastic, welcome to this dramatic exercise in transparency: we can now see how the rich and powerful do the things that only the rich and powerful can do. The political consequences of the leak, for example in Iceland and the UK, indicate that the transparency in turn is leading to greater accountability.Are these the only valid responses? Is there any issue here about privacy and the right to confidential legal advice? Or are such concerns mere fusspottery and point-missing?