Fear and Loathing on the Learning Curve: Observations on Life, Tech and Web Design from a Slightly Misanthropic Mind
We Need to Have a Chat About Julian
A lot of people have asked me in the last few days what I think about Wikileaks and the ongoing conflagrations over their most recent release of thousands of previously secret US diplomatic communications. I’ve worn myself out yakking on about it, as it’s something on which I do indeed have a view, so I thought it might be best if I scribbled something down towards which I could point future questioners and save myself some oxygen.
The last few weeks have been an interesting time because until recently I sided firmly with Wikileaks specifically and the hacktivist/information-wants-to-be-free movement in general. But I’m getting better at not stubbornly following prior allegiances these days, and given that extra shot of objectivity I can say with reasonable confidence that this time, in my mind, Wikileaks have sadly overstepped the mark.
A lot of people have become aware of Wikileaks’ existence only recently, as a result of this most recent batch of releases. This is unfortunate, because often these people are unaware of previous releases Wikileaks has made, which have been of a somewhat different stripe to the diplomatic cables released during the last few weeks. They have most significantly included video material showing the sanctioned killing of journalists and civilians in Iraq, and most recently the Iraq War Logs — thousands of classified reports of US military activity in that country. These disclosures highlighted widespread abuses and controversy that had up to that point been suppressed from the public.
The distinction here, then, is the concept of public interest. This is the metric by which the ethics of the actions of a leaker or whistleblower are judged, and in the cases I’ve just mentioned you would — I’d hope — struggle to justify keeping that material secret. These are acts carried out by forces funded by the public and administered by leaders that we elected, so they owe us a degree of transparency and accountability. They work for us and in our name, so if they’re carrying out illegal or immoral acts, we deserve to know. We have a right to know.
When it comes to the recent release of diplomatic cables, however, I don’t believe this defence applies. I haven’t read all the material that’s been released; I’ve only garnered tidbits from the media. My understanding, however, is that the material being released is certainly acutely embarrassing and provocative, but not revealing of any abuses, cover-ups or transgressions of any similarity at all to those detailed in, for example, the Iraq War Logs. In releasing these cables, Wikileaks have engendered a lot of red faces, but for entirely different reasons to the Iraq War Logs. The content of these cables does not, for me, seem a valid justification for their release.
Worse, in releasing the cables Wikileaks has, I fear, caused a lot more trouble than they could possibly be worth, and here’s why: without the public interest defence, Wikileaks has lost a massive chunk of the moral high ground on which it previously stood in the minds of many. And in angering and embarrassing the US and international governments as they have, they stand to greatly harm the prospects for anyone wanting to blow the whistle on immoral or illegal activity in the future.
Here’s the thing: while I don’t now look particularly favourably on Wikileaks, it’s my belief that it’s essential that whistleblowers have an outlet in the society in which we live. That outlet used to be newspapers; now it might be Wikileaks; in five years it’ll probably be a different group. But the capability of someone to release information without fear for their own safety — be it abuse of detainees or falsified clinical trials or asbestos in council housing or whatever — is absolutely vital. Without it, all these things go unchecked and those doing the wrongs are never brought to account. Previously, however, those publishing the leaks were themselves held to account and so exercised a degree of discretion over what they published. Wikileaks, it appears, have abandoned discretion and lost a lot of credibility in the process. An organisation that previously garnered a lot of respect now ends up looking at best like the perpetrators of an awful misjudgement and at worst, a bit childish.
My fear is that Wikileaks has now set in motion a revenge machine that will not stop until all these voices are silenced. The pursuit of Julian Assange is largely an irrelevant sidebit in this story — he’s just one face of the organisation, after all — but most people have already forgotten the plight of Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of being the source of much of Wikileaks’ recent material. He’ll likely be sent down for some time, and the stage will be set for any future whistleblower with the message that harsh penalties (criminal or otherwise) await those who want to follow their consciences. What happens to Manning will prove more significant than Assange, but will likely be lost in the media circus. And sadly the US is likely to further reveal its true colours in the measures they take to silence Assange and convict Manning — some already underway and already of great concern — and these will be the dire portents on which future leakers will look.
It’s possible that Manning was coerced, financially or otherwise, but I certainly don’t know and I suspect few do, despite what they may claim. But however they got this latest information, the point is that in ‘freeing’ it as they have Wikileaks may well have greatly damaged the prospects of responsible disclosure happening in the future, and it’s a great shame that the straw that finally broke the camel’s back was a package of watery diplomatic grumblings instead of valuable exposés of evil and outrage at the hands of our governments and militaries.
This Doesn’t Prove Shit
The BBC reported this evening with some gusto that the US Justice Department had released “the first video” of the impact that took place at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001, thanks to a Freedom of Information request by Judicial Watch. In 2002 stills from another Pentagon security camera claimed to show the same, but were of low quality and failed to really clear up anything. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton was quoted as saying, “finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77.” Regrettably, it fails to do so.
The still below linked here is taken from the BBC stream of the video — the source camera, like the previously released stills, is of low framerate; this is the only frame containing whatever it was that impacted with the Pentagon.
What annoyed me as much as the treatment of this release as something conclusive was the tone of the article, which reminded me of every official response to critical articles written about the incident. Theories have long circulated about what happened at the Pentagon, and regardless of what the official line is and what is branded as “conspiracy theory” are the facts — that the damage at the Pentagon was not consistent with an impact by a 757, illustrated (among other things) by the complete lack of visible debris. Okay, so perhaps this can be explained away; why then, if this is so, has the US government not released the other video and photographic material recording the incident, namely the private surveillance cameras at the hotel near the Pentagon (confiscated by the FBI after the attack) and at the petrol station across from the Pentagon. National Geographic News reported in December 2001 that “Velasquez [the owner] says the gas station’s security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. “I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like,” he said. “The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.”” The authorities have never released these images which, logic argues, should surely show the true events of that morning.
This is no wonder, however, when blinkered attitudes like those prevalent in the United States still exist. In 2002 French author Theirry Meyssan released two books attempting to give an objective explanation of what he believed were the real events at the Pentagon, namely that what impacted there could not have been a 757 but was instead a smaller plane or missile, or the damage was caused by a truck bomb at the site. Leaping aboard the American institution of anti-French sentiment, Pentagon spokesman Glen Flood described the book as “a slap in the face and real offence to the American people”. To me it seems that this mentality has become the norm when dealing with issues like this — complete rejection of the possible alternative story suggested by the “conspiracy theorists” because the ramifications of it being true are so mind-meltingly huge that civilisation as we know it would implode. The average American, despite being faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, simply refuses to even entertain the possibility that what happened could be any different from the official version of events.
The release of this video does not help to shore up the defence of the official story. It should not be treated as such. The other evidence of the events at the Pentagon that is still being suppressed needs to be released. I don’t like the official story; I don’t like the implications if one of the other theories turns out to be true. I don’t claim to know either way, but I and millions of others want to see that other footage.
Yes, what happened at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11th was an atrocity in every way. Yes, the loss of human life was horrific and terrible, and should never be forgotten. But that is not a reason to refuse to question what went on. Those who suggest alternative theories are not trying to insult the dead. They are only trying to find the truth.
US releases 9/11 Pentagon video, BBC News, 16÷5÷2006
Why Pentagon released 9/11 tape, BBC News, 16÷5÷2006
The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack, 911research.com
Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon, National Geographic News, 11/12/2001
Better Late Than Never
As the WTC towers fell four and a half years ago, most of Manhattan was engulfed by dust clouds from the massive amounts of debris produced by the collapse. Wall Street was closed on September 11th and re-opened on September 17th, as authorities were desperate to limit the economic damage of the attacks. The Environmental Protection Agency, with its history of administrative sucking-up (covering up global warming evidence, suppressing reports on car fuel efficiency, etc), declared the air in Lower Manhattan, which was loaded with asbestos, lead, americum and other toxins, “safe to breathe” on September 18th, and thousands returned to work.
Now, nearly five years on, reports of the effects to health of those living and working in the area are beginning to reach the mainstream media. BBC News reported yesterday that the count of those with medical problems linked directly to the 9/11 attacks has reached 15,000, many of whom say they were offered “false reassurances” by the government. 5,000 are now seeking a class-action lawsuit. January saw the first death ruled to be due to 9/11 dust — James Zadroga, who worked at Ground Zero.
A footnote on the report on the BBC News website states that “a special report on the dust fallout from the 9/11 attacks will be featured on BBC World starting on Wednesday 3 May at 1930 GMT. The documentary will also be carried on BBC News 24.” I first heard about the dust effects in the “Confronting the Evidence: A Call to Reopen the 911 Investigation” documentary — and that was nearly two years ago.
Problems mount from 9/11 fallout, BBC News, 12÷4÷2006
EPA’s 9/11 Air Ratings Distorted, Report Says, LA Times, 23÷8÷2003
“Confronting the Evidence: A Call to Reopen the 911 Investigation”, Reopen911.org
EPA Controversies, Wikipedia
New Orleans: Inside Story
To anyone who has been following the terrible events in New Orleans, this will make both interesting and concerning reading. Since Hurricane Katrina hit the area, its effects have been nothing less than catastrophic, but now the winds have receded, the real problem is a human one.
Michael Barnett, a.k.a. The Interdictor, works for DirectNIC, a large domain hosting company operating out of New Orleans. He and his crew have been holed up in their 9th-floor office suite, tasked with keeping the tens of thousands of hosted domains online. The building the houses their data centre and office has its own diesel generators, and as of today their Internet links are still up, and they are still online. His blog, now become the “Survival of New Orleans blog”, documents the things he has done and witnessed since the hurricane’s impact.
From his office he and his crew broadcasts a webcam feed (URL is a mirror and subject to change) and takes pictures of what he can see below — looting, military and police action, and the progress of the floodwaters. And a read of his blog shows things to be a lot worse than the mainstream media is reporting.
He reports police officers carrying out looting of SUVs, ATMs and guns; emergency supplies being dropped off bridges by the National Guard, destroying most of them in the process; reports of armed civilians surrounding police officers — one police source is quoted as saying,
“The people in the city are shooting at the police. They’re upset that they’re not getting help quickly enough. The firemen keep calling because they’re under fire. He doesn’t understand why the people are shooting at the rescuers. Here it is 5 days ago the Mayor said get out of town and nobody went and now they’re pissed.”
As he puts it,
“In case anyone in national security is reading this, get the word to President Bush that we need the military in here NOW. The Active Duty Armed Forces. Mr. President, we are losing this city. I don’t care what you’re hearing on the news. The city is being lost. It is the law of the jungle down here. The command and control structure here is barely functioning. I’m not sure it’s anyone’s fault — I’m not sure it could be any other way at this point. We need the kind of logistical support and infrastructure only the Active Duty military can provide. The hospitals are in dire straights. The police barely have any capabilities at this point. The National Guard is doing their best, but the situation is not being contained. I’m here to help in anyway I can, but my capabilities are limited and dropping. Please get the military here to maintain order before this city is lost.”
The blog’s RSS feed is here.
Apparently it’s also possible to listen to the National Guard radio channel with Winamp here.
Update: I’ve been trying a bunch of different feeds and this is the first I’ve found that works — it’s the Louisiana State Police radio channel in Baton Rouge, the one currently being transcribed on #interdictor-scanner (with occasional crosstalk on #interdictor-scanner2) on irc.freenode.net. Other feeds are listed here.
Wiretaps in U.S. Jump 19% in 2004
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the number of court-authorized phone taps in the U.S. rose by 19% in 2004.
Authorities made 1710 applications for taps, and 1710 applications were approved (that’s 100%). And that figure does not include terrorism-related taps, which reached a record 1,754 last year. From the article:
“Between 1994 and 2004, the number of wiretap authorizations have increased 48 percent, according to the report. In 2004, New York reported 347 wiretaps, California 180, New Jersey 144, and Florida 72 authorizations. While judges authorized more wiretaps, the average length of time in which a wiretap could occur decreased in 2004 from 44 to 43 days.”
You can find a complete history of older posts in the Archive.
