Slashdot Mirror

I should also mention that this question was raised in parliament to link the Minton report to Trafigura. The Minton report is still the subject of an injunction and it's contents can not be mentioned at this moment by the UK press but can be found on wikileaks.

The full report is also up on wikileaks, along with some background info.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006

Everything should be published. Obama's travel schedule/routes, secret codes, locations, troop movements, etc. Everything...

This is a straw man fallacy, and completely irrelevant to the discussion, or to the purpose of Wikileaks.

Go to the about wikileaks and have a read. Look at the slashdot article itself. Both use the work 'embargo'. The Advisory Board, and the staff of Wikileaks, are not going to release the information you are suggesting. It's not the purpose to reveal future troop movements, travel plans or secret codes. They reveal what has happened in the past, and how it was ignored, or hushed up, and allowed to continue.

Everything should be published. Obama's travel schedule/routes, secret codes, locations, troop movements, etc. Everything...

This is a straw man fallacy, and completely irrelevant to the discussion, or to the purpose of Wikileaks.

Go to the about wikileaks and have a read. Look at the slashdot article itself. Both use the work 'embargo'. The Advisory Board, and the staff of Wikileaks, are not going to release the information you are suggesting. It's not the purpose to reveal future troop movements, travel plans or secret codes. They reveal what has happened in the past, and how it was ignored, or hushed up, and allowed to continue.

Sometimes you simply cannot risk exposing yourself as the source of a leak.

While a random leak about how a bank's managing board essentially granted themselves free loans might raise investigative pressure, the most they can do is use the justice system to get at the journalist, and they have quite iron clad protections in a lot of countries.

Now imagine a leak about how a government's covert espionage agency has been conducting kidnappings, torture and murder on its country's own soil and against its country's own citizens, and it becomes easy to imagine that the journalist won't have any kind of protection other than the fact that it was leaked via Wikileaks.

While torture is problematic at best, I sincerely doubt that any kind of journalist would keep their mouth shut about who their sources are, once their kneecaps are being slowly crushed by a vice. And if Wikileaks have no records of who uploaded this information either, then that also protects the source.

Once you have uploaded the information to Wikileaks you then either have to wait for someone else to stumble upon it and notify the relevant media OR you contact them yourself. The latter risks exposing you - having a "leak through Wikileaks" contact form will be more secure.

I just hope it isn't implemented as a trackable link on the journalist's website. Then the offended parties can "just" get their hands on a list of IPs and other info that used that link.

I'm a lurker in that community and I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with TI. The community has had to reverse engineer every component of the hardware with no help from TI, and has done an amazing job writing development tools and mapping out which memory addresses do what.

Here's the wikileaks link to the keys.

Suppose that they only want people willing to go through x amount of bullshit in submission to authority...
--
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/My_life_in_child_porn

Presumably you put this link into your signature because you wanted to draw attention to it. It's a fairly safe bet that more people will be willing to click on said link if you change "http://wikileaks.org/" to "https://secure.wikileaks.org/", thereby doing a better job of drawing attention to it.

the Icelandic bank meltdown. They turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, with the bank's major shareholders taking out loans into the billions of dollars, investing that in other companies, which in turn went bankrupt, taking Iceland's money with them.

You better believe it. Personally I used to be sceptical over such claims, but only this week here in the UK, the Video Recordings Act 1984 was found to have never been enacted. Well I tell you what - it's the end of civilization here. Just as MP Barbara Follett feared as she suggested censoring the news about the law not being valid, the market has been flooded with unclassified DVDs, and it's led to crime rates going through the roof, with rioting up and down the country.

I tried to pop into my local video store to see if I could get hold of a copy of one of these "video nasty" snuff films that are now on sale, but couldn't fight my way past the horde of children who were purchasing hardcore porn, and immediately afterwards as a result, they started raping each other. Apparently the porn that they download for free on the Internet just doesn't have the same effect on them. Me, I was lucky to get out alive.

This is a national emergency. The Government has been handing emergency "blinkers", so that adult citizens can go about their daily business, whilst minimising the risk that they might see a non-Government approved image and then turn into a criminal.

And all this comes after the UK experienced 7 months of not a single incident of violent crime, thanks to Liz Longhurst who single-handedly criminalised possession of adult porn that she doesn't like. Let's hope the Government remembered to tell Europe about that law, otherwise I don't think there will be anyone left alive.

2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt

There's 40 sources about the details of the coup. As for your resignation letter, I love how you linked to the image instead of the page that covers it, where it is headlined Purported President Chavez resignation letter, and includes the description, "regardless of its veracity". And read the letter's talk page -- nobody there believes its veracity. For example:

"If I see correctly (resolution is too low) the letter is dated as April 13th, not April 11th. If Chávez renounced (Which I think he did) he did it the 11th, not the 13th, when he was almost certain to return. I oppose to Chávez, but I think this is a hoax. "

And, FYI, I don't type with my mouth. I think you'll find that you get a better words-per-minute rate if you use your fingers, as I do.

Incidentally, 4chan is on the australian censorship list. Google is also censoring its search results regarding /b/.

Here are the MD5 checksums I calculated for various downloads:

• d5a75fb334d3830cfe463e983f570473 http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://88.80.16.63/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.eu/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.fi/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.nl/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.org/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.pl/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.to/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf

The difference impacts the rendering of the document beginning on page 16. It appears to have HTTP headers inserted into the file. The same difference is seen across these download programs: firefox, lynx, wget. There may be a bad replication to that site. Maybe they used a bad HTTP client.

Here are the MD5 checksums I calculated for various downloads:

• d5a75fb334d3830cfe463e983f570473 http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://88.80.16.63/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.eu/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.fi/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.nl/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.org/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.pl/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf
• 86c58c545c74b80f5c61c0ab6c4bfeae http://wikileaks.to/leak/kaupthing-bank-before-crash-2008.pdf

The difference impacts the rendering of the document beginning on page 16. It appears to have HTTP headers inserted into the file. The same difference is seen across these download programs: firefox, lynx, wget. There may be a bad replication to that site. Maybe they used a bad HTTP client.

Wikileaks doesn't actually use the phrase "insider loans," they use the phrase "internal documents."

I think slashdot summariser may have made a mistake. [jon jonson]

Perhaps Soulskill would like to correct.

The WL page history shows no changes since 31-Jul.

Per the cease and desist order, it appears that the lawyers on behalf of Kraupthing are doing their job.

The laws themselves appear to be there to protect the client's confidential information. Paraphrasing (IANAL, IANAL, IANAL!) they are:

58. Banks are not suppose to disclose their customer's financial information.
59. Exception #1 - if there is a risk to a parent company
60. Exception #2 - if the customer(s) say it is okay to disclose the information.

So basically the bank and the bank lawyers are doing the job they are legally obligated to do on behalf of their customers.

Wikileaks did the exact same thing. Later someone send the leak to them, and they had to give out those donators info per their rules :)

People working at these positions should really check their emails before they mass send them..

German police let that one slip, so did a few other arrests.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_SSL_Interception_letters_-_Bavaria_-_Digitask

I don't think you've read that document. There's even an English version. While it's not improbable that Skype does have a backdoor of some sorts, the document doesn't prove anything about that.

They talk about two pieces of software. Their "Skype Capture Unit" is a trojan installed on the computer of the person under surveillance. If you have a trojan on your target machine, you can listen to anything, Skype or otherwise. The point of the name is probably to be able to sell the police other "Foo Capture Units" in the future. The other piece of software is a generic MITM attack on SSL-encrypted connection, nothing specific to Skype.

German police let that one slip, so did a few other arrests.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_SSL_Interception_letters_-_Bavaria_-_Digitask

I don't think you've read that document. There's even an English version. While it's not improbable that Skype does have a backdoor of some sorts, the document doesn't prove anything about that.

They talk about two pieces of software. Their "Skype Capture Unit" is a trojan installed on the computer of the person under surveillance. If you have a trojan on your target machine, you can listen to anything, Skype or otherwise. The point of the name is probably to be able to sell the police other "Foo Capture Units" in the future. The other piece of software is a generic MITM attack on SSL-encrypted connection, nothing specific to Skype.

German police let that one slip, so did a few other arrests.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_SSL_Interception_letters_-_Bavaria_-_Digitask
http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/01/bavarian-government-caught-looking-for-skype-backdoor.ars
The rest of Russia's problem is what? A revenue drop from its diaspora?
But they do have a point, the way the "Skype" codec is moving into many free and closed applications.
The Russians miss the good old days when they could track a sat phone and send a guided bomb down (Dzokhar Dudayev)?
But then the NSA did help with that one :)

Democratic regimes also see their own countries' intellectual elite as an enemy.

Of course not. If someone contacts you ("you" being a member of the press) with information that just might be covered by secrecy/espionage laws, you'd be insane to look at it. The government could come down on you harder than the person who actually, stole, copied, or otherwise originally obtained the documents. Even if you have no idea what the status of that info is, the feds take the position that "you should have known better".

In fact, the person who originally made off with said information may be in a better negotiating position to defend himself. The gov't is scared sh*tless that such people might have other information that might be released to the public or, worse yet, make it into the public record through a trial. So he can negotiate a "get out of jail free" card. You, the press, cannot.

There's only one solution: Wikileaks. Eventually, the gov't is going to realize that, giving the press some ability to publish such documentation would be better for all. At least, they'd have some ability to negotiate a few redactions of stuff that ws actually sensitive. Rather than just sitting on an entire story because its embarrassing. Until then, if you've got your hands on some interesting stuff, just post it and let the NSA wish that, in a better world, they could have negotiated.

Meanwhile, you kids keep your damned black helicopters off my lawn!

The list of websites forbidden in Australia:

http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009.txt

I searched for "slashdot" but couldn't find it. So we'd better not badmouth Australians too much; there could be some here.

As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn? It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.

It has nothing to do with child porn. These list are NOT used to block child porn. They are used to block whatever the government or those in charge of the list finds objectionable.

If it was about child porn the objective would be to catch and punish those who are actually producing and publishing the material. They are committing crimes and hurting people. Blocking has no effect on the production and distribution of child porn. Filters and blocks are trivial to circumvent. It's probable easier to circumvent the filters that it is to actually find child porn on the interent. If it's not it should be relatively easy for the government authorities to shut down the sites and prosecute the guilty rather than introducing censorship that, by all rights, will have a terrifying chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press. One of the articles included in the summary states that legally objectionable material in NZ includes:

All 'objectionable' material is banned. In deciding whether a publication is 'objectionable', or should instead be given an 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

â acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty

â degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person

â promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism

â represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

So this includes that video of the police beating that man who was rude to them. It includes the riot police attacking the crowd of peaceful protesters. It includes the police opening fire on the protesters who turn violent after being beaten. And don't say that won't happen. Finland's list already contains anti-censorship web sites.

I find it strange and ironic that governments are in an uproar about the censorship in Iran and some are actually considering punishing the companies that sold equipment and software used for censorship while at the same time out of the other side of their mouths they are advocating establishing the same type of censorship here (where ever here is: US, Australia, Europe, Canada). It's about child porn my ass.

As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn? It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.

It has nothing to do with child porn. These list are NOT used to block child porn. They are used to block whatever the government or those in charge of the list finds objectionable.

If it was about child porn the objective would be to catch and punish those who are actually producing and publishing the material. They are committing crimes and hurting people. Blocking has no effect on the production and distribution of child porn. Filters and blocks are trivial to circumvent. It's probable easier to circumvent the filters that it is to actually find child porn on the interent. If it's not it should be relatively easy for the government authorities to shut down the sites and prosecute the guilty rather than introducing censorship that, by all rights, will have a terrifying chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press. One of the articles included in the summary states that legally objectionable material in NZ includes:

All 'objectionable' material is banned. In deciding whether a publication is 'objectionable', or should instead be given an 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

â acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty

â degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person

â promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism

â represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

So this includes that video of the police beating that man who was rude to them. It includes the riot police attacking the crowd of peaceful protesters. It includes the police opening fire on the protesters who turn violent after being beaten. And don't say that won't happen. Finland's list already contains anti-censorship web sites.

I find it strange and ironic that governments are in an uproar about the censorship in Iran and some are actually considering punishing the companies that sold equipment and software used for censorship while at the same time out of the other side of their mouths they are advocating establishing the same type of censorship here (where ever here is: US, Australia, Europe, Canada). It's about child porn my ass.

Especially as these filters are never misused for other things than child pornography for convenience, when they're in place and all.

How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?

How to shape with twitter in near real time. Iran was a good test run for that. 1000's of fake pro 'green' Iran bursts all at the same time, to get the topic as number one.
All pre package and ready to look 'organic'.
Then track and promote the end losers who fall for it and become the real grass roots.
US Ethno-Political Conflict Simulator: Influencing Leaders and Followers, 3 Oct 2006 should give slashdot readers a taste of the fun the US gov has in the 3rd world.
The only question is what is been done in the USA via data like this?
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Ethno-Political_Conflict_Simulator:_Influencing_Leaders_and_Followers%2C_3_Oct_2006

Here's a crazy idea: how about nuclear power? Oh, that's right, the word "nuclear" is too super-scary for the science-based environmentalists. Never mind that they actually are better for the environment than anything else.

I would agree with you if, by "actually," you really mean "not actually." Many opponents of nuclear power, myself included, are not so much bothered by radioactive waste disposal issues. We are much more concerned about the high cost of system failures.

Everyone here is familiar with how difficult it is to keep defect rates in the 5 sigma region, let alone the 6 sigma region. Even with a spectacular 6 sigma failure rate, that means some failures _will_still_happen_. The longer a plant operates, the more likely a problem with occur. The more plants the operate, the greater the number of towns and cities that will be contaminated.

No control system is fool-proof, as students of the nuclear power industry know. What is most dangerous to safe reactor operation is the idea that a system, or one (or more) engineer(s), is fool-proof. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island should cure anyone of that attitude. The reality is, reactor contamination "events" are much more common that industry advocates would like you to believe (see below).

Remember, nuclear power in some places is a for-profit industry. Nuclear power industry CEO's have the same short-term incentives to minimize labor costs, keeping reactors online, and minimizing maintenance costs that AIG, Comcast, AOL, Best Buy, McDonalds, and every other for-profit company has. In other places, it's run by the incumbent utility company. With threats of budget reductions due to economic trends, political decisions (tax cuts anyone?), etc., event public and quasi-public utilities experience many of these pressures.

So, before portraying opponents of the nuclear power industry as milksops (or whatever you were insinuating), educate yourself a bit.

I prefer no to have a few hundred MBA's riding shotgun on doomsday machines. It's bad enough as it is already.

See also:

• http://news.google.com/news?q=nuclear%20reactor%20leak (way too many results show up)
• http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/national/17nuke.html
• http://www.miamiherald.com/982/story/1035992.html
• http://www.physorg.com/news162708897.html
• http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/18446
• https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Monju_nuclear_reactor_leak
• http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/nucene/nucacc.html

You get the point. You don't want one of these in your backyard. Nobody does. So let's not build any more of 'em.

Yes they did, after the donators emails were accidentally sent to lots of other donators and some of them requested that they'll add the leak to the site.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_partial_donors_list%2C_14_Feb_2009

"The U.S. has set up over the last two centuries a means by which information that should be kept secret is kept secret and information that should be public is public. By and large, this works .. Wikileaks would throw all of this out"

The people have a right to know what its government is doing on their behalf. Generally, if it can't stand the cold light of day, then they shouldn't be doing it. The ACTA secret agreement being a case in point.

I wonder where the Novas Scarman report has gone. If it's run like most of these charity rackets, it'll be one huge gravy train.

I don't think the Slashdot crowd should need convincing that Wikileaks is a force for good. However, passive support won't be enough for such a contentious organisation, so do what I did and show them some love.

(Hmm, I just noticed that PayPal donation is currently down, which is rather awkward...)

Just a follow up, for those who want to read the iPhone SDK Agreement themselves. Apple won't allow the general public to read it, its hidden so only registered devs can access it. Here is a link to the wikileaks pdf of the agreement. Please take note that section 3.3.2 matchs my above quote word for word.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
Justice Potter Stewart

Who decides what is child pornography and what is not, because Australia would really like to know.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist

I wasn't aware that the Chinese were using pornography as their scapegoat. Kind of reminds me of how Germany is using child pornography as the reason to have strong Internet restrictions Link (probably NSFW, but no pictures, so you decide): http://wikileaks.org/wiki/An_insight_into_child_porn

Since there's no link in TFA, here it is on WikiLeaks.

Here's the local paper's story about MSFT...
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090520/NEWS08/905209980

Also, Yahoo! recently lost to the tune of $6.6 million! In the same damn courthouse!
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090521/NEWS08/905219967

It's not really Texas as much as East Texas in particular. The land where justice is bought and sold. Heck, now they're moving this crap up to the big city of Tyler.

The real reason they sue here is because we have the most corrupt courts in the land and the "good citizens" accept that as normal. Criminal or civil, you're screwed here if you don't have the right lawyer. But hey, what do you expect in a dry county that has the only XXX drive-in theater I've ever seen.

Heck, check out this suppressed book and bear in mind, we still have that same sheriff! Sigh.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Smith_County_Justice

And yes, I'm anonymous because I value my freedom. Just posting here could put me in jail. I suppose I should be using Tor too but it's alright, nobody here understands technical issues anyhow.

"try and get an "advanced" scientology text (pure bull, BTW), without forking some serious cash." Done https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Scientology

Either you stand up to things you don't like, or you remain silent forever. Good luck with your decision.

If you choose to stand up to things you don't like, you still have the choice of tactics in how to make your stand. Part of that it figuring out how to either 1) continue to remain alive and free, or 2) make it expensive for the opposition to kill or imprison you.

If I were given some hot data -- say, a copy of the "torture photos" that have made Obama lose his testicles (or perhaps to display that he never really had any) -- I would keep in mind that in order to get the information out there, I don't have to arrange for permanent hosting. I just get it out to a bunch of different places long enough for the Streisand Effect to work its magic.

My suggestion:

• Take a nice drive to a different city. Pay cash for all gas and tolls. Do some touristy stuff while you're there -- if it comes up, don't deny you were there, but don't advertise it either.
• With cash, buy a cheap wi-fi card (or USB interface) and hard drive to make your laptop clean, so the MAC address and any browser data won't be traceable to you later. Buy these at different places. Install the drive and wi-fi in your laptop and do a fresh install of your OS.
• Find a place with free wi-fi. Use it. You want a small cafe or bar that's not going to have security cameras, not a franchise. Be bland and unrememberable.
• Post the data to wikileaks, certainly. But that's a single point of failure. So also:
• Post on indymedia.
• Set up a throw-away Gmail or Yahoo mail account. E-mail copies to journalists (including major bloggers).
• Set up pages on Google Sites and any other free website provider you can find. (Use mailinator.com for registration.) Put the data up there.
• Post links to those pages on any blog that's remotely relevant.
• Optional: with cash, buy a couple of SD cards. Make like Rodrigo Rosenberg and record a video of yourself explaining that if you disappear, it's because the spooks got you. Put a copy of the video and the data in question on the SD cards. Seal in envelopes marked "open only in the event of my death or disappearance." Mail to a few people you can trust (inside another envelope, so the attention-getting message isn't visible...). Works best if you have friends/family who are the sort who would engage in a bloody campaign of vengeance against your killers, but most of us would have to settle for something less dramatic.
• Wipe the hard drive. Install bogus data on it so it looks boring. Dispose of it and the wi-fi card at an electronics recycling drop-off point.
• Utterly and completely destroy whatever media originally held the data, and dispose of the remains at several different places.

absorb reality.

I can't, as that is a crime in the case of childporn, so I have to base my knowledge on third party accounts.

right now, your thoughts have nothing to do with reality

Really? How come then that while there have been a ton of raids due to childporn material, not once have I heard the story of children being freed in those raids from their porn producing molesters? When there are a million of children molested as that Wikipedia article claims, it shouldn't be to hard to free a handful of them, yet that never seems to happen in reality. Yet, I hear storys of Wikileaks getting raided, a contra-censorship politician stepping down due to child porn accusations and of course children themselves being treated as sex offenders because they took pictures from themselves for their girl/boyfriends all the time. And on top of all that there is that "weird" little fact that the server on the censorship lists actually stay up and running, even so they are perfectly within reach of juristic. It took a third party all of two days to mail the provider to shut down half the domains on the list. Why hasn't the police done that? Why do we need a huge censorship infrastructure instead? Make no sense at all.

And when it actually comes to prosecuting those childporn owners, nothing shows up that points to a childporn industry. How do you explain that? (Hint: Reality ain't what politicians want you to believe.)

As far as I can tell the truth of the matter is very simple. Child abuse is a very real problem and something should be done about it, but it happens in the families themselves, not in the Internet and not for money. Any witch hunting for the childporn industry is doomed to failure, as it doesn't exist and is just distraction from the actual child abuse.

PS: Most links are in German, apply http://translate.google.com/ when needed.

My question is: would you host it if you were asked? How would you go about protecting the document and yourself?

It depends on who is asking me. There are maybe 5 or 6 people in my life that if they approached me with this request and said it was serious and said it had to be me hosting it, I would do it no questions ask. I would not read the document, I would stop them from explaining to me what is the document, I would do it and give them the link. I would then go directly to my lawyer and have a small chat with him. Then I would grab a glass of Chivas Regal and put on a record and take the battery out of my cell phone and relax.

"The NASA budget for 2010 has been announced, up 5% on 2009. Human space flight plans to be reviewed."

I'm quite glad to hear that this review of NASA's spaceflight plans is occurring, and from what I've read seems to be quite good at minimizing outside/political/industry influence and making sure that the recommendations will truly be the best ones possible. The only problem is that NASA and/or the administration might end up ignoring those recommendations for political reasons (e.g. making sure jobs remain in particular congressional districts).

Evidence has recently been leaked that the NASA's ESAS study which settled on the homebuilt Ares I (based on then-Administrator Mike Griffin's pet design) over the already-existing commercial EELV rockets was deeply flawed. Basically, the flawed 60-day ESAS study (often relied on by certain NASA officials to defend their plans) had a number of major problems:

(from Selenian Boondocks, with parts of the leaked study available on Wikileaks )

• Exceptions given in the ground rules and assumptions on maximum dynamic pressures to In-line SRM based crew launch concepts that weren't given to any other vehicles (without the exception, all of the five-segment Stick concepts would've been ruled out from the start).
• Unrealistically assuming a fixed LAS mass regardless of first stage characteristics (like T/W, max-Q, and whether you can shut them down or not).
• Inaccurate dry mass numbers for existing EELV upper stages (just as some of the guys on NASASpaceflight.com had been saying for years now).

As things currently stand, the Ares I has been running into major problems, many believe it to have fundamental design flaws, and projected development costs are running into the $30-$50 billion range. Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago a NASA-commissioned independent study confirmed that the commercial EELVs would be able to fulfill NASA's needs of transporting NASA's orbital and lunar spacecraft, with estimated costs of a few billion dollars (about an order of magnitude less than the Ares program). That's to say nothing of SpaceX and COTS-D, which could do the job for around $1.5 billion dollars of development costs.

There's some drafts over at wikileaks Classified US, Japan and EU ACTA trade agreement drafts, 2009

It is not an "ad hominem" argument if I merely point out that your own words demonstrate that you were swindled, utterly and completely.

An ad hominem is where you attack the person, rather than their argument. You didn't merely anything, you said that my argument was based on my boundless greed in your first post. And when I pointed out that if I were greedy I wouldn't be paying quite a bit of money each year on purchasing movies and music, you then attacked me again by trying to say that I'm only defending the system because I hope to profit by it later. That's a second ad hominem. The part about being swindled, etc. etc. was a minority of your posts and doesn't address what I say anyway since it simply states your opinion that someone who pays for a copy of a film, music or ebook is being swindled. You don't back it up with any reasoning, just repetition in various forms and excessive use of "quote" marks for pseudo-emphasis.

Then in your third post to me, the one I'm replying to now, you again resort to ad hominems implying I am gullible or prone to excessive submissiveness to authority. You waste a lot of words simply accusing me of things and very little deconstructing what I say. As an aside on the excessive submissiveness to authority, I have previously petitioned my local MPs and MEPs on various issues of digital rights, was one of the founder members of the Open Rights Group, backing it with a significant amount of my own money (another counter to your accusations of my "boundless greed", incidentally), financially support WikiLeaks and have been photographed numerous times by the friendly UK police on various protest marches. I don't know what you require of someone to not be excessively submissive to authority - throwing bombs, maybe - but I think the odds are that if I qualify as excessively submissive, then you rank lower still. That's not an ad hominem, btw. That's simple likelihood posted in defence of myself against your accusations. I don't pretend that the personal qualities of either of us are a substitution for argument. So on that note, let's address the one position you have stated that isn't a personal attack on myself:

I only have to point to your own laughable admission that you are under a silly illusion that you are actually "purchasing" music.

I give money to someone. A file downloads in return. In what way have I not just purchased a copy of that file? Why is that a "silly illusion" ? Money given in exchange for them giving me a copy of the file I want. If you have trouble with that, perhaps go and look up the word 'purchase' in a good dictionary.

There are numerous examples of "hideous logical contortions" in the comments on this page. I'm not going to start copying and pasting large amounts of texts from my other posts in order to provide examples. Go and read through my other comments here if you like. But I suspect you're about to provide your own contortion in an attempt to explain how my giving money in exchange for a copy of a file isn't purchasing something.

As regards "demanding my detractors prove me wrong" well, I made a statement and you attacked me with accusations of bias, greed and a slavish addiction to authority. I think you jolly well should have to try and prove me wrong with actual logic if you're going to be like that. If I was as completely incorrect as you say I am, it ought to be pretty easy. But we're several posts in and you haven't done it yet. Just posted personal attacks and unsupported statements that you think buying a copy of a file is an "illusion."

Regards,
H.

Most child porn services are hosted in Germany. And they're very, very good at not getting caught.

This might give interested people a bit of background.

I don't believe that this necessary will lead to censorship of other "offensive" or politically incorrect material. Here in Norway, we've had a similar filter[1] in place for a few years now, and it hasn't been extended in any degree to include anything other than what has been deemed as child porn. It's efficiency in combating the distribution of child porn can be questioned, but I don't think you'll ever find it being used for other purposes. [1] http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Norwegian_secret_internet_censorship_blacklist%2C_3518_domains%2C_18_Mar_2009

If you would like more information on Phorm/WebWise, NoDPI.Org has been leading the campaign against them for the past 14 months (and were co-signatories to the Open Letter). We have worked on a number of iniatives including organising the House of Lords Round Table Event which Sir Tim Berners-Lee attended on the 11th March this year. We plan to take the lobby all the way to Brussels and the campaign has already led the European Commission to initiate legal proceedings against the UK Government after they failed to enforce EU Privacy Directives with regards to Phorm's covert trials with BT Group in 2006/2007. I also filed a criminal case with the police in July last year, which they closed stating that there was no criminal intent and it was not in the public interest. As a result of this I was forced to contact the Director of Public Prosecutions and bypass the police entirely - the Crown Prosecution Service are now investigating the matter and will make a decision on whether or not to prosecute. The covert trials in 2006 alone intercepted over 130 million communications over less than 2 weeks and modified those communications to insert Javascript into web pages which passed through their systems (then known as PageSense). I leaked an internal BT report which goes into a great deal of detail about the 2006 trials to WikiLeaks last summer and I also wrote my undergraduate dissertation on the legal implications of the same covert trials.

You can find the dissertation here: https://nodpi.org/documents/phorm_paper.pdf
You can find the leaked report here: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Image:BT_Report.pdf
And you can catch up on the entire scandal on our blog here: https://nodpi.org/

Hope that clarifies things for those who are not aware of who/what Phorm/WebWise are/is.

Alexander Hanff

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958

There is a section on evangelism steps to take to build support, which he calls guerilla marketing, or "The Slog" and and that's the section that includes using supposedly "independent" analysts and consultants:

-- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

-- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted - one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference organizer to worry about, right?

The source for the original document written by James Plamondon, first trainer of "Technical Evangelists" (TE) for Microsoft, is at the Comes vs Microsoft lawsuit website. An article titled "Evangelism is War!", px03096.pdf, page 53.

The "Slog" and the "Stacked Panel" are very interesting reads and describes EXACTLY how Microsoft stuffed the ISO committees when it stuffed the OOXML "standard" down IT's throat. It also explains what they are doing NOW with the European FOSS Strategy paper. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/How_to_Hijack_an_EU_Open_Source_Strategy_Paper

http://wikileaks.org/ Confidentiality: yeah! Privacy: yeah! Truth: yeah! No corporate bullcrap: yeah! Hidden source (magic word TM): yeah!

Wikileaks has published a new press release about the alleged censorship. After I read the details I fully understand why the contract had been terminated.

In December Reppe tried to transfer bnd.de - the domain of the federal intelligence agency Bundesnachrichtendienst - to his account. To do that he had to assure that he was the rightful owner of bnd.de. The provider stopped the transition and terminated the contract with Reppe with 3 months notice.