Slashdot Mirror


WikiLeaks Supporters' Twitter Accounts Subpoenaed

HJED writes "The US Justice Department has served Twitter with a subpoena for the personal information and private messages of WikiLeaks supporters. There's a copy of the subpoena here (PDF); boing boing has a detailed article. Twitter has 3 days to turn over the information."

391 comments

  1. Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Move along

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's actually a bigger worry IMHO than whatever random stuff is on Twitter. The flow of cables from Wikileaks has dried up. They hardly released any at all since the new year.

      Given that only 2000 of them have been released out of 250,000 they need to be stepping up the pace dramatically if they want these cables to ever see the light of day. But the exact opposite is happening. Is the biggest leak in history destined to actually be the smallest thanks to infighting and problems at Wikileaks, I wonder?

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll see how many leaks start popping up closer to the US election. I have a feeling Assange is a tool.

    3. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suspect that one of the problems they are having is manpower; they need the 'big' news organizations to help them sift through all the cables and see what can be released and whether those need redacting, but those organizations are now very busy handling the news around the whole affair. And the wikileaks people themselves may be a bit preoccupied with several legal procedures. There are other internal problems at wikileaks but I do not think that those are the only reasons the flow seems to dry out.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Is the biggest leak in history destined to actually be the smallest thanks to infighting and problems at Wikileaks, I wonder?

      I suspect that if it gets too mired someone will just release a full dump.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Nothing to see here by stuckinphp · · Score: 1

      This would be wise, given the memory and attention span of public opinion.

      --
      if only
    6. Re:Nothing to see here by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Of course part of the problem here is that they really don't use the "wiki" in Wikileaks. At least in theory they were going to be using wiki or wiki-like tools that would let newcommers and ordinary people help with the processing of the information, but apparently that has been thrown out the window. Yes, it started that way, but it isn't any more.

      Certainly something like Distributed Proofreaders could help in processing the information, to show what a "crowdsourcing" model or at least community development effort could look like without the wiki itself.

      Yeah, there is political infighting, but a great deal of that is self-inflicted. There is a need for something like WIkileaks and I'm glad that they are doing what they are doing, but they also need to get their act together if they are going to pull through this as well. That Julian Assange couldn't keep his pants zipped up has also hurt a whole bunch too.

    7. Re:Nothing to see here by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't really wiki anything that requires secrecy. It's not practical do do background checks and personal interviews with tens of thousands of volunteers.

    8. Re:Nothing to see here by HumanEmulator · · Score: 2

      Given that only 2000 of them have been released out of 250,000 they need to be stepping up the pace dramatically if they want these cables to ever see the light of day. But the exact opposite is happening.

      Regardless of how you feel about it, this would seem to be a sign the US Government's tactics are working.

    9. Re:Nothing to see here by gtall · · Score: 1

      C'mon Rush, don't hold back...

    10. Re:Nothing to see here by Teancum · · Score: 2

      Why not? Supposedly the whole point of Wikileaks is to uncover secrets and to push them into the open, not to be gatekeepers over what is secret.

      There is some legitimate concern over protecting the privacy of "innocent people" who may be mentioned in some of the content. I do think it may be possible to train tens of thousands of people to be able to discretely and quietly remove that kind of information which can do unintended harm, but it certainly wouldn't be easy.

      What is the whole point of the secrecy anyway with Wikileaks, beyond that simple goal of processing the information to protect privacy? And more significantly, who is Wikileaks going to get "clearance" from in terms of a background check? The FBI? Department of State? Yeah, I'd like to see that happen.

    11. Re:Nothing to see here by camperdave · · Score: 2

      You can't really wiki anything that requires secrecy.

      I thought the "leaks" part of wikileaks was an indication that secrecy was what was being avoided. The whole point of the project was to be a conduit through which conscientious individuals could bring information to the public; information that an agency or corporation might be trying to hide because it would expose activities that are illegal, immoral, or harmful to the public welfare.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Nothing to see here by horza · · Score: 2

      I don't see how that follows. Most of the cables will be dull, and extracting good information tedious. Some initial keyword searches will pull up juicy gossip, eg "Iran". As you pick off the low hanging fruit, it will be harder and harder to find dramatic ones to release. The last one about US happy to let Japan kill whales is of passing interest, but hardly on the same level as Saudi Arabia wanting to bomb Iran. There may be a couple of bomb-shells being kept back, but probably not. The best stuff may already out there.

      Phillip.

    13. Re:Nothing to see here by ego+centrik · · Score: 1

      _ open your eyes then. terrorists are so picturesque with a fine rethoric + they have great fireworks. we love t-boys, twitter loves them + we all love you.

    14. Re:Nothing to see here by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      The govt had given access to it to millions of background-checked people.

      See how that worked for them.

    15. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon Rush, don't hold back...

      Quickly now, I must find a celebrity to compare him to. Then I'll deal with him in a way that I would deal with that celebrity, so I can both ascribe all traits of that celebrity to him while at the same time pretending I have the guts to confront someone about their views! That's so much better than refuting anything he's said! Really I am so right, I must be, please believe me, kthanx.

      There really is a ruling elite and has been for a long, long time now. They gave up overt aristocracy and traded it for something like the power behind the throne in terms of media presence, Newspeak, and monied interest. It's fascinating to see how irrationally the sheeple react when anybody points this out. Like that saying, the best trick the Devil ever played on mankind was to convince them that he doesn't exist. The elite is like that, and you ... you are their little lapdog. You bark when you're trained to bark and you reject as absurd what you are trained to reject. Good boy!

    16. Re:Nothing to see here by gtall · · Score: 1

      Woosh!

    17. Re:Nothing to see here by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The cables are probably included in the encrypted "insurance" file that WL has already released. Assange isn't the only one with the key. If things get ugly it will pop up on the net.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    18. Re:Nothing to see here by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Oh no, there's a TON more. They haven't released nearly everything. Don't forget that they have to pore over hundreds of thousands of documents, checking them for authenticity (someone might have pumped bogus information in), and protecting identities if it's necessary (ie, intelligence sources). You think everything in Assange's insurance file is out there already?

    19. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've actually been wondering for a while how many people at WL actually have access to a full dump, and what it would take for someone to leak it from wikileaks.

    20. Re:Nothing to see here by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Of course part of the problem here is that they really don't use the "wiki" in Wikileaks. At least in theory they were going to be using wiki or wiki-like tools that would let newcommers and ordinary people help with the processing of the information, but apparently that has been thrown out the window. Yes, it started that way, but it isn't any more.

      Certainly something like Distributed Proofreaders could help in processing the information, to show what a "crowdsourcing" model or at least community development effort could look like without the wiki itself.

      Yeah, there is political infighting, but a great deal of that is self-inflicted. There is a need for something like WIkileaks and I'm glad that they are doing what they are doing, but they also need to get their act together if they are going to pull through this as well. That Julian Assange couldn't keep his pants zipped up has also hurt a whole bunch too.

      Or, and I know this is a WILD idea, one could give information directly to multiple news outlets anonymously. Just a crazy thought.

    21. Re:Nothing to see here by 3seas · · Score: 1

      Dud, the idea of mass population reduction is not something I'd post if there wasn't more information I've come across. I.e. Chemtrails. I didn't believe it till I saw it myself going on and I even took some pictures of contrails being put down over Atlanta along with contrails in the same photos around 5pm. Later learned earlier that morning they were putting them down over North Carolina, apparently working west. Here is a video well done http://vimeo.com/16219493

      Of the files in the wikileaks released archive of torrents http://wikileaks.ch/file/wikileaks_archive.7z is one on sterilization study and a few others catholic church related that are not available via torrents.

      and there is more...
      http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/56612/End_Game__Population_Reduction_Plans_/ and there are other videos as well on this. i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiFcGRmagmk

      I'm also quite aware that for some people, perhaps such as yourself, you cannot handle the truth or figure if you can't do anything about it them out of mind is better.

    22. Re:Nothing to see here by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      I do think it may be possible to train tens of thousands of people to be able to discretely and quietly remove that kind of information which can do unintended harm

      Among those tens of thousands of individuals would be people who log everything they can get and sell it to interested parties.

    23. Re:Nothing to see here by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      You can't really wiki anything that requires secrecy.

      I thought the "leaks" part of wikileaks was an indication that secrecy was what was being avoided. The whole point of the project was to be a conduit through which conscientious individuals could bring information to the public; information that an agency or corporation might be trying to hide because it would expose activities that are illegal, immoral, or harmful to the public welfare.

      WikiLeaks has been removing certain names, places and dates in an attempt to avoid endangering individuals.

    24. Re:Nothing to see here by Teancum · · Score: 2

      Sell to whom? The information would all be out in the open anyway. I suppose that you have hundreds of people with "check user privileges" on Wikimedia projects who discretely log and sell everything they can get to interested parties too?

      It isn't as if this information is being kept from those who would screw you over. It just isn't available to "the general public".

    25. Re:Nothing to see here by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      The problems is those news outlets might be tightly connected to the government in some way , so they might all decide to do nothing with it , to protect themselves ( given the treatment wikileaks is getting , you can't exactly blame them )

    26. Re:Nothing to see here by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      That Julian Assange couldn't keep his pants zipped up has also hurt a whole bunch too.

      Why does this matter? He's a single man, he can fuck who he wants.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Nothing to see here by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The problem is that he didn't care who he was messing around with, and one of the idiot bimbos decided to file rape charges... putting him in the position to get screwed over in more ways than one.

      I personally don't care what he does or with whom he does it... male or female... but the point here is that randomly and indiscriminately banging on any available tail does have its consequences. It is also a common way that most law enforcement agencies and many governments use to catch somebody if they can't get you on anything else.

      If you are going to be leading a "revolutionary idea" that is certain to draw political flak, you need to high slightly higher standards than that average schmuck... at least if you want your political concept and movement to have any sort of traction and not get bogged down with a legal morass. In other words, Julian Assange pretty much shot himself in the foot here.

  2. America America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the free... as long as you dont badmouth the goverment. Otherwise we will throw you in jail for what you read crying thought crimes.

    1. Re:America America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course no one has been thrown in jail, but don't let that stop you from QQing

  3. There is a threat to democracy! by owlstead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a threat to democracy, quick, suspend all civil liberties!

    1. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by cyrus0101 · · Score: 2

      Enter arma enim silent leges. Just sayin'.

    2. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, the US strategy on constitutional rights reminds me of the much ridiculed "French war strategy." I am seriously starting to consider moving to China as a realistic alternative, because at least they have a growing economy. Or, are there still some freedom friendly nations out there that I don't know about? Last time I checked, they where all "following the leader" off the cliff.

    3. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pack you bags and leave now - China is waiting for you

    4. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, the US strategy on constitutional rights reminds me of the much ridiculed "French war strategy." I am seriously starting to consider moving to China as a realistic alternative, because at least they have a growing economy. Or, are there still some freedom friendly nations out there that I don't know about? Last time I checked, they where all "following the leader" off the cliff.

      Not only that, but there's more chance (slightly less than fuckall) of China getting a Bill of Rights than there is of the USA actually regaining any of theirs (absolutely none). While China allows it's citizens few rights - at least they don't bullshit about it.

      While the scale of any single incident is not comparable - the Israeli experience of terrorism surpasses that of the USA - and yet I only need to be at check-in 30 minutes before a flight - they've never zapped me or felt me up and despite the very real risk - I feel a hell of a lot safer traveling there than I do visiting the US for say, DEFCON, and waiting to see who the FBI is gonna grab this time. Yeah - go on, leave the USA and go to China, see how long the Xtra-wides and TSA groupies take to destroy what remains of the economy without you.

    5. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One wonders what your take on Obamacare is.

      A giant overweening government is the root cause of the threat to liberty, and you can't keep giving government the power to solve all life's little ills (even if you make the outlandish assumption that it could) without turning it into an overweening threat to personal freedom.

      If you bitch about illegal wiretaps, you can't logically cheer on that same government taking enough power to run the 1/6 of the US economy that's health care.

    6. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      There is a threat to the twitterati, quick, suspend all consequences for the stupid believing they were anonymous! Sorry to report your very nonymous. Duhaa

      b/tard is that you?

    7. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Private health insurance = paying a big bonus to a ceo

      Public health insurance = fewer people dead

      Single payer would cost less money, and provide healthcare to those that cant afford it. WTF is your god damned problem you greedy son of a bitch? Thats what it boils down to. You think you deserve healthcare, but that no one else does. Your a greedy piece of shit bastard.

      Also if your a Christian, didnt Jesus say that whatsoever you do to the lowest, you do to him. So if you deny the poor healthcare, your refusing to bandage your savior. Go rot in hell. If the religious right actually followed their religion, you wouldnt be able to call them the religious right

    8. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Noze! The government wants everyone to have health care! That's exactly like illegally listening in on our private conversations!

    9. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats "Inter" not "Enter".

      Also, this defense didn't work at nuremberg, why should it work here?

    10. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score:6, Funny

    11. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1, Informative

      How does Twitter being served a subpoena suspend anyone's civil liberties? While it's true that you're allowed to say anything you want, it is another matter when crimes have been committed. A subpoena could expose those crimes. Please notice I said "could" and not "will". Just because you happen to agree with what Wikileaks does, doesn't mean that some people connected with Wikileaks haven't committed any crimes as defined by US law.

      It should be no surprise that if you use any services from companies owned by citizens of the US, your data is subject to scrutiny by US officials. As for the Icelandic official, they should have known that anything that they wrote using Twitter was being hosted in the US and that they have no control over it. Ignorance is never an excuse in matters of the law.

    12. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      The fact that health care IS one sixth of the US economy ... see that, right there, is the problem.

        Do you think that's normal? What does it tell you about the degree of waste and inefficiency inherent in the health care system, when it comprises such a huge part of the total economy.

      Also the usual: government-paid health care does not (in most countries) mean government-run healthcare. We have full single payer public health care in my country but doctors still run private practices/businesses - they aren't run by the government, the government just helps pay the bill at the end of the day...

    13. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      What happened to this country?


      This latest Twitter account subpoena shouldn't be a surprise. Look at the way the Justice Department has been targeting and harassing people who oppose the 4th Amendment violating TSA. And now TSA is coming to WalMart?

      De Tocqueville said "Men with a passion for physical pleasures are usually quicker to realize how the restless desire for freedom disturbs prosperity than to perceive how freedom itself serves to promote it. If the slightest rumor of public excitement threatens to intrude into the trivial pleasures of their private lives, they wake up and feel anxious. The fear of anarchy long holds them on tenderhooks and ever ready to jettison liberty at the slightest sign of disorder." This is the United States today. We jettisoned liberty and cheered.

      Is this the United States of America that we grew up in, proud and self-assured? Is this the United States of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower? It is not. It has become clear to billions that since GW Bush the United States is no longer the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. It is now a nation like any other, dictatorial and corrupt.

      We don't have long. Can this process be reversed through any process less than bullets and blood? I hope not. I know the people who have the bullets and many are not good people. In the event of an American revolution, we may lose the civil liberties gained over the 150 years and embrace a racist and theocratic regime like Iran. But it is coming. The Constitutional violations that take place daily cannot go on. Something has to give.

      I hope Ron Paul runs for President again in 2012. He has my vote. If he does not, I will encourage and vote for his boy, Rand Paul. I am not sure many other men could get us out of this mess.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    14. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Protip: being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong, it just makes you a hypocrite.

      But anyway, I'll give you my take on Obamacare, even though you didn't ask me.

      Obamacare is the wrong answer to the wrong problem. Instead of forcing everyone to get insurance so that insurance companies can jack up the rates on consumers who have no way out... sorry, meant "lower rates by spreading the risk pools over more people" the problem to solve should have been "Why the FUCK is healthcare so expensive it takes up 1/6th of the economy and requires that everyone have health insurance in order to make sure that they can afford it when they need it?" Riddle me this: why don't insurance companies take some of their profits and hire some drug researchers to take a look at the diseases treated by the drugs they spend the most money on, and make a version that they can basically give away, thereby reducing the actual cost of healthcare and simultaneously saving them "long run" money? Not only that, but unlike the "normal" drug companies, they have absolutely no incentive to lie about side effects (and in fact, have every incentive to get the minimum side effects and risk out of the drugs) since they're the ones paying for it when a drug puts someone in a hospital. Bonus points for eliminating the "apparent" conflict of interest of treatments being more profitable than cures.

      ...Oh wait, if healthcare got cheaper, nobody would need insurance companies anymore. Better instead to coax doctors into contracts that require them to bill uninsured patients MORE than the insurance company, so that they can scare everyone into getting insurance because health care is SOOOO expensive.

      Don't give me tort "reform" either, unless you're going to admit your own hypocrisy of complaining about government "solving all life's little ills" but then wanting to let doctors and medical companies go hide behind Big Government's shield to protect them from their own "little ills". (And it hasn't worked for it's supposed goal, either: Texas basically eliminated malpractice lawsuits thanks to the $250k noneconomic damage cap which basically turned it into charity work for lawyers... why, at that rate they can only afford to bill 24 hours in a day instead of their usual 40 or so. It did reduce the cost of malpractice insurance... but that savings wasn't passed on to the patients).

      I don't expect any rational discussion on this any time soon, since both major parties have loaded the issue with bullshit like people dying in the gutters (and calls for Jaayyyyyyssssuuusss! like the other anon, who is The Fucking Poster Child for keeping God out of my Country) and DEAAAATHHHH PANNNELLLLZZZZ! ... honestly, I can't decide which scares the Republicans more:

      1) the thought that someone somewhere might not want to send hundreds of thousands of dollars to their biggest corporate backers to be kept alive for no reason but to pump more drugs into them, and by setting this out in writing with witnesses and all in advance of becoming a vegetable they won't be able to have their Schiavo-style theatrics as they attempt to get them ruled incompetent to decide their own destiny while calling it "suicide" (LOL no, whatever disease, injury or old age killed them, you lying cunts).

      2) the thought that having a doctor tell them that they can decide whether they want to be kept alive or not and telling the doctor that they want the hundreds of thousands of dollars of tubes and drugs stuck in them for however long it takes will cause the Greatest Voting Bloc to decide that they want Medicare to pay for it.

    15. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Steeltoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So, it's ok for authorities to lie, cheat, bribe, kill, torture, etc, and the very act of exposing them is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment?

      It's also ok for authorities to use surveillance, covert-operations, false flag operations, etc., to ensure "peace and prosperity".

      You're so fucked.. Just watch your country go down in flames, and the same fucking politicians stepping up and "saving it", from the problems of their own creation!

    16. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by budgenator · · Score: 2

      Finally a voice that passes the sanity checks. The other thing I find either illuminating or conspiratorial is that all of the wailing over things like ECHELON, COINTELPRO, Carnivore and Patriot Act seems to be much ado over nothing because either the Feds still have to do significant amounts of good old fashioned legwork to get anything done or do it anyways to cover up how easy it is to do it now.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is never an excuse in matters of the law.

      What about the knowledge that the US Supreme Court specifically ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that what Wikileaks has been doing is completely 100% protected by the First Amendment? I should also point out that the really interesting part of this whole incident is that Barack Obama's reaction to the leak was more authoritarian than Richard Nixon's was to Daniel Elsberg's leak.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    18. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      ...We jettisoned liberty and cheered.

      "This is how democracy dies..."

      ...Land of the Free...

      Most people see the states as the Land of opportunity

      I hope Ron Paul runs for President again...

      I've fallen! And I can't get up!

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    19. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an old saying that was common in the Soviet Union - something about Stalin's purges. It's something like "Give me a man, and I'll find a paragraph against him" where paragraph means regulation in the law.

      So of course no one has committed any crime but as sure you can find one. But if you can't there is always GITMO where a confession will be signed.

    20. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      This is a court order; I fail to see how civil liberties are impinged when, in the course of an investigation, court orders are issued in support of said investigation.

      But nevermind that, lets get back to mindlessly railing against the government, democracy, the courts, etc-- NOTHING they do can EVER be right.

    21. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Perhaps what Wikileaks is doing by publishing these documents is not a violation of US law. IANAL.

      However the means by which these documents reached Wikileaks is very probably a violation of US law. I am sure that US investigative agencies are very interested and are quite justified in gathering as much information as possible as to how that happened.

    22. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Asserting a proof by conspiracy doesn't help to fix the problems you describe. If you have evidence of unethical "surveillance, covert-operations, false flag operations", please present it so that the perpetrators can be held responsible.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    23. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a fishing expedition for the purpose of a political trial.

      There corrected it for you.

      And people are railing against specific actions and attitudes of the US government, which now, thanks in large part to Wikileaks, are very well documented reasons as well.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    24. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The perpetrators have just subpoenaed Twitter in an attempt to hold those presenting the evidence responsible, and you still believe said evidence doesn't exist?

    25. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that if you YOU try to use video surveillance to record an encounter with the authorities (you know, to prevent a "he said, she said" issue later) then you can be charged with felony wiretapping..

      Amazing how fast things went downhill since 9/11.

    26. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by chrisG23 · · Score: 2
      Knowingly exposing sensitive government information is a crime. Anyone with a security clearance knows that (or should know that) because it is beaten into you when you get a government clearance.

      Subpoenaing Private Manning in this case is not unusual. He is involved in a criminal investigation.

      I am not familiar with all of the other names on that short list. The ones I am familiar with are not US citizens. Non US citizens outside of the territory of the US do not have any of the same rights that US citizens have. (Non US citizens inside the territory of the United States have very many rights). Subpoenaing the records of non-US citizens that are currently not located inside of a US territory is not against any law I know of. IANAL, please someone that has more knowledge clarify that issue.

      Also, the US government does do things I do not agree with. Bringing up a list of bad things the government does/has done and tying it into this, when there is little relation, does not help your cause.

      There is a catch-22 situation of exposing government bad stuff. Most (but not all) government bad stuff is classified, not necessarily to hide the government doing bad stuff, but for other security reasons. If you really want more of this to come to light, support more political candidates that support greater government transparency. Texas Senator Ron Paul comes to mind, but before you blindly support him because his views on say US foreign policy and the economy align with yours, investigate the whole man and all his beliefs (he is extremely conservative. More so than any other Republican conservative).

      Also you say "your country" so I assume you mean that you are not a US citizen. The problems of the US are best solved by US citizens, but unfortunately most of us can't be bothered to stop and think about our government.

    27. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government doesn't pay anything. It's taxes by the people that pay for healthcare. It's a solidary distribution system so that a society as a whole may live a higher quality of life. Once the alternative of "big government" is even bigger business, I'd rather be under hand of an elected body that at least needs to pretend to act in the public interest, than a corp that only acts in self-interest. This is something that someone like your parent poster does not seem to grasp, because they are full of greed.

    28. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by connect4 · · Score: 1

      The figure alone tells us precisely nothing about waste and inefficiency, though obviously the lack of single payer, socialized medicine system is a huge efficiency problem for US healthcare, what with the PBMs, insurance corporations, etc. taking their cut and clogging up the works, not to mention the uninsured masses . . .

      Anyway, 1/6 seems about right. If they had their priorities straight they would spend less on things like drug wars and the military (though I heard recently this is happening). Then there would be enough money left to spend an even greater proportion on healthcare, which after all is a fundamental indicator of the advancement of your society (and in which regard the US is a laughing stock amongst other industrialized countries).

    29. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      Which authorities do you speak of? Could you give specific names? Do you have any name of any person that is currently in prison at the behest of an authority for exposing something?

      As far as your second statement, yes it's ok. As long as they are within the boundaries as set in the law there is no problem.

      The real problem is that people don't understand the boundaries of the laws. Since your last statement points to the fact that you are not a US citizen, you likely have little or no knowledge of our laws. Anything I say further only deviates from this discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

    30. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      While I support the leak, I think this response is either oversimplified or ill-informed.

      NYT v US did not prevent the filing of criminal charges against parties who were involved in the actual procurement of documents. In fact, one of the Justices who joined the majority opinion (White, maybe?) went so far as to encourage the prosecution of all involved under other statutes. The decision was limited to whether the government could prevent publication, not whether they could criminally charge them with possession of classified material. The latter was still held to be within their power.

      Additionally, if (and that's a big if) they can make a case that publication poses a threat of "direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to [the USA], or its people," then NYT v US does not apply.

    31. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by dangitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Non US citizens outside of the territory of the US do not have any of the same rights that US citizens have.

      The Declaration of independence opens with these words:

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      So clearly, the rights enshrined in US law are intended to apply to all humans. And this gets to the heart of "rights," whether in the sense of US law, or the more international conception of "human rights." They are meaningless unless they apply to everybody. If something is a (human) right, then why would it only apply to people who are citizens of a certain nation? If you hold any belief in the notion, they should apply to people regardless of country of origin.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    32. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're getting at.

      Let me use a car analogy.

      If you exceed the speed limit while attempting to stop a criminal, you're still breaking the law. If it was tried in a court of law, it would likely be dismissed as long as your intentions were "good".

      So, substitute Pentagon Papers in for speeding. Somewhere along the lines, someone broke the law by disseminating information that was not theirs to release.

      You point out yourself that the US Supreme Court made a ruling about the papers. Just because a precedent was already set doesn't mean that everything that happened in the Wikileaks disclosure is free and clear. Let's use the Pentagon Papers as an example.

      "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision."
      — Ellsberg on why he released the Pentagon Papers to the press.

      Let the government figure out if laws were broken. Let the courts decide what, if any, punishments are in order.

    33. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but there's more chance

      Completely delusional. Learn from US history. This is a very cyclic cycle of events. Hell, look back at the 50s to the hunt for reds and wide spread blacklisting which took place.

      That's not to say good people should do nothing. But the flip side is, don't break from reality either.

    34. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      You nailed exactly what I was trying to say.

    35. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Once the alternative of "big government" is even bigger business, I'd rather be under hand of an elected body that at least needs to pretend to act in the public interest, than a corp that only acts in self-interest.

      There are alternatives to direct government control that can provide the same benefits without the drawbacks. For example, the government could create and provide initial funding for nonprofit organizations to build new hospitals and run them. Similarly, the government could create a nationwide nonprofit insurance company to compete with private insurers and could provide vouchers for the poor.

      Neither of these is likely, of course, because the Republicans would cry "big government" and "unfair competition", along with most of the Blue Dog Democrats.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    36. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by chrisG23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you and hate to be a nitpicker, but the Declaration of Independence is not part of US law. It is a statement of principles and reasons for the thirteen colonies rebelling against the British Empire. Legal rights start at and derive from the US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was and is tremendously influential towards US political philosophy, so maybe what you meant to say is that "clearly the rights enshrined in US government philosophy are intended to apply to all humans." And yes, we have never fully lived up to our principles, and have done many things completely counter to them throughout history and up until now, and that it is the job, the duty of the citizens of the country, to keep the government continually in check, even when it means inconveniencing our lives.

    37. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Well, my point is that regardless of the details of US law and history, the concept of "rights" is widely regarded as unalienable, and beyond the scope of individual jurisdictions. In other words, stating that it is merely a "statement of principles" is meaningless, as principles are superior to laws.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    38. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love this!
      George Carlin warns about the "rulers of the country" w/o being called a nutjob.
      Steeltoe makes the same points, but would have been called a psychotic kook if he mentioned or sourced Alex Jones' thousands of articles on these very topics.
      I swear the smartest people can also be the most hard-headed.

    39. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Then there would be enough money left to spend an even greater proportion on healthcare, which after all is a fundamental indicator of the advancement of your society (and in which regard the US is a laughing stock amongst other industrialized countries).

      Not really. A society in an ideal state of advancement should spend almost nothing on health care. If your society is truly advanced, people should rarely get sick, which should mean that almost all of your health costs are either emergency care (for accidental injuries) or preventive care. Spending more money than anyone else does not inherently result in better care.

      Spending larger and larger portions of your budget on health care is indicative of serious problems---specifically, an inefficient health care system that burns money on huge salaries for the people at the top coupled with a population that has serious health issues (widespread obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.).

      Oh, and there's also the price gouging by drug makers and medical equipment manufacturers. That certainly doesn't help. Nor does our tort system, which results in utterly absurd medical malpractice insurance costs. Nor does our medical education system, which results in doctors with absurdly large medical school debts that they have to pay off.

      In short, there are so many things wrong with our health care system that it's almost hard to know where to begin. The escalating costs are not indicative of better care, but rather of a fundamentally broken system that spends way, way more than it should for what we get out of it. One could argue that high costs of medical research and development are indicative of an advanced society. High treatment costs, however, are generally indicative of the exact opposite.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    40. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      "Inter arma enim silent leges"

      "In times of war, the law falls silent."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_arma_enim_silent_leges

      I guess the government finally figured out the best way to permanently suspend people's rights is to be in a permanent state of war.

    41. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Non US citizens outside of the territory of the US do not have any of the same rights that US citizens have.

      That's not what the founding fathers said in their Declaration of Independence:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

      or in Amendment 9 of the Constitution:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    42. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by tehdaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The constitution is clear and careful with the wording it uses. When it means citizen - it uses the word 'citizen'. Most of the bill of rights uses the term 'people' not citizens. It means what it says. The US simply does not have jurisdiction over most people outside of the US, there is nothing in the constitution to imply that those people not not have those rights.

      Not all rights are inalienable, and since some of these rights have been granted to US citizens only, it is not wrong to say that citizens have more rights than non-citizens. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does not fall into this category.

      T

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    43. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I guess the government finally figured out the best way to permanently suspend people's rights is to be in a permanent state of war.

      "We have always been at war with Eastasia".

      And if they can control the flow of information, our history, then they can control our future as well. There is no possible way that Orwell could have known how right he was, and he knew he was right. Next, they will be subpoenaing Slashdot for the real names of everyone that says anything negative about the TSA as well.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    44. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      I do in all my current posts, just follow my sig.

    45. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. There's nothing stopping a downturn from going all the way to the bottom.

    46. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Despite a clear and documented pattern of disagreeable (to a great many people) conduct by the US and other liberal democratic governments, why have there been no successful actions to successfully address these concerns, and what improved strategies would you suggest?

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    47. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WE are so fucked

    48. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "SECRECY" must be PROHIBITED by an ACT in order to be used by any kind of PUBLIC GOVERNMENT !!!! Those documents had to be PUBLIC to any citizen... There is nothing to investigate other that the government using "illegal tactics" as a under hood political agenda !

    49. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      I apologize if you've mistaken my explicit request for evidence for a belief I neither hold nor express. But thank you for helping me to set the record straight about this conversation with your duly entitled summary judgements.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    50. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by avatar139 · · Score: 1

      Just watch your country go down in flames, and the same fucking politicians stepping up and "saving it", from the problems of their own creation!

      Actually I think the real problem it terms of politics in this country lies with the lack of people who can complain about government when asked but can't be bothered to vote!

      The corrupt practices of politicians are the symptom of the problem, not the disease itself!

      IMHO, the real disease is how the means of political action and change in this country ends up being forestalled by the general public's growing sense of apathetic helplessness regarding the perceived (rightly or wrongly) universal lack of integrity in the practicing of politics and the personal character of politicians in America means that the situation is so futile as to not be worth bothering about!

      I live in the SFBay Area and as such I am a proud member of the smallest political minority group which consists of the people who have voted in every election (including special elections) since turning 18! The reason that I've always voted is that ultimately I believe that we, the American people are the solution to politics if we do vote, but we're the problem if we don't!

      Although I know a lot of people have expressed similar views since our nation's founding, I believe Benjamin Franklin said it first (and best):

      Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

      In summary: if you aren't voting, sit down, shut up and quit your whining!

      --
      I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
    51. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      why have there been no successful actions to successfully address these concerns

      such as?

    52. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      I don't understand your question. Steeltoe cites a Wikipedia article as evidence of US government badness over decades. That such a list is represented as describing obvious badness spanning decades indicates that accountability problems have not been successfully solved by the usual actors (citizens, industry, media, other states) despite strong social and economic profit motives to solve those problems.

      On the assumption that Steeltoe's claims are fully supported by the evidence cited, I'm trying to find out what has been done to address such concerns, why such concerns have not been successfully addressed, and about suggestions that Steeltoe might have about new ways to address such concerns.

      I'm trying to provide Steeltoe with every opportunity to educate me about the issues he raises via logical arguments. That individual has not since engaged me in any further substantial discussion or provided any further information I seek to better understand his claims and evidence. I am left to conclude that either the evidence does not support the claims, or that the badnesses claimed have not been a high priority for any of the millions of domestic and international actors empowered to ameliorate them over the last 60 years.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    53. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by stox · · Score: 1

      The Declaration of Independence does provide context by which some of the Constitution may be interpreted. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." is the thesis that the Constitution is designed to implement. Unfortunately, it appears that I am in the minority in this interpretation.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    54. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yes, we have never fully lived up to our principles, and have done many things completely counter to them throughout history and up until now, and that it is the job, the duty of the citizens of the country, to keep the government continually in check, even when it means inconveniencing our lives.

      And when the government stops listening?

      I actually had hope when Obama was elected. Now I am beginning to think that only the frontman has changed. While he has done some good things, to a large degree his rhetoric does not match his administration's actions.

    55. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Actually he cites a google search which is one step lower.
      As to why such problems haven't been solved it's an issue that the problems which are actually solved become non-issues.

      most of the worlds problems could be solved by a 5 year old if people were willing to actually follow advice like "stop shooting one another","don't seriously dick people over for trivial gains of your own" and "no it's not yours now just because you really want it and have a gun"

    56. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      There is a threat to democracy, quick, suspend all civil liberties!

      Correction there is a threat to the Republic not Democracy. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where you will find the word Democracy. Sure our officials are Democratically elected but that is as far as Democracy goes in the US.

      Believe it or not I do get the gist of your post. It just irritates me when I hear the US refered to or implied as a Democracy when it is far from it. Especially when the sheeple in this country would rather believe a news report rather than find the facts for them selves. According to the date of the subpoena it is almost a month old so twitter has already complied with the order. Because revealing the existence of said subpoena before authorized to do so is of course a felony.

    57. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      No one said otherwise. But the reality is, the US has ALWAYS had these swings of the pendulum arm. So to say this is anything other than just another swing of the arm requires extraordinary proof - or at least a something which indicates a huge departure from historic trends. Until such time, we have every reason to continue to believe its history repeating - as usual.

    58. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by artistscope · · Score: 1

      Gee, I can get tired of this whine very quickly... "threat to civil liberties"? When does being a public nuisance, a threat to other privileges and treason ever become justified except to pinheads that keep resorting to this, the weakest argument of all?

    59. Re:There is a threat to democracy! by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      the rights enshrined in US law are intended to apply to all humans

      No. The rights enshrined in US law are intended to apply to all subjects.

      That is: the rights are reserved to your financial owners. You, the subjects, have these pieces of paper to make you act like you have rights but, when we show up, you don't really have any. It is a carefully manipulated psychological game to keep all of you nicely under our thumb. It has been that way since we cut everything down in the book of Genesis to starve you out and make you do what we say.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  4. Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.

    To where is the only real question.

    1. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Haedrian · · Score: 2

      There are tons of things which shouldn't have a leg to stand on either. Doesn't stop anyone* from doing it does it?

      Good thing America is democratic! Pity the people seem to have lost their teeth a while back.

      *hums* The land of the free.... and the home of the brave *hums*

      *US government/MPAA/RIAA/TSA

    2. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by damaged_sectors · · Score: 1

      Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.

      To where is the only real question.

      You are right of course - and there may be a prize for that, hopefully not a hood and a plane ride - because the subpoena is surely just for statistical purposes.... not being American, I have nothing to fear because:-

      A: my government will protect me, and

      B: I don't twitter, so I only have to worry about my use of Freenet and my donations - the latter is safe because Mastercard will refuse to co-operate.

      Or have I missed something here?

      ---

      Yesterday the media told the truth, today they announced a retraction

    3. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone notice Obama is acting a lot like Bush lately? I would have expected a "give me your damn twitter accounts!" coming from the Bush government, but not under Obama who was supposed to end that nonsense. ALSO I wonder what the politicians fear wikileaks so much? I'm tempted to set-up a twitter account and "friend" Wikileaks just for the sake of solidarity. Maybe they'll come after facebook next. Or Michael Moore (he supports the website).
      .

      >>>Move to where is the only real question.

      Pretty much. The European Union is not any more free than the American Union. China is definitely out, and Australia/Canada are less free then even the US. (Australia is filtering the net, arrests people who DRAW sex images of children, and Canada recently forced a reporter/artist to submit to questioning when he included a Muslim in his cartoon.) Ironically the freest state might be the former soviet union, now known as the Russian Federation. Too bad it's so damn cold there.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada?

    5. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anyone notice Obama is acting a lot like Bush lately?

      Bush never ordered the assassination of an American citizen. Or at least if he did, he had the decency to be ashamed of it and not announce it as being public policy.

    6. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Sometimes freedom is little more than an illusion deliberately foisted off on those who can't measure the cage in which they operate.

    7. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      and Australia/Canada are less free then even the US. (Australia is filtering the net, arrests people who DRAW sex images of children,

      Settle down sport - there's no need to exaggerate. BigPuddle censors the 'net, but that entirely voluntary.

      Just wait till *our*( National Broadband Network comes on line. We're gunna raise some eyebrows then. We'll see who's laughing at us then.... [mutters - bloody yanks]

    8. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by kanto · · Score: 1

      Ironically the freest state might be the former soviet union, now known as the Russian Federation. Too bad it's so damn cold there.

      In Soviet Russia, the beatings you get at human rights demonstrations will keep you warm. There the state run media will be all over some poor grandma being deported back to Russia or call for tanks when one of their neighbors moves a statue the USSR left behind; what they won't do is give the time of day for ethereal stuff like yro. It's not funny btw. because it's true.

    9. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.

      To where is the only real question.

      I think you should go to China or Russia where there is more freedom; perhaps even N. Korea. Weakie leaks has endangered many lives - espionage is not free speech.No such thing as free speech anyway.

    10. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by walshy007 · · Score: 2

      Weakie leaks has endangered many lives - espionage is not free speech.

      The discussion of political implications of the leaks of internal government stuff is now espionage hey? We are talking about people discussing and being in favour of what wikileaks has done, ignoring whether you think what it has done is good or bad, you think that people agreeing with it politically should be enough to let the government have it's way with them too?

      Wikileaks was also not involved in any espionage themselves, those that gave them the information may have but that is irrelevent to wiki leaks. Wikileaks merely published what they were given, as did the new york times and other publications. By your reasoning are they too guilty of espionage by covering some of the cables in articles?

    11. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      Anyone notice Obama is acting a lot like Bush lately?

      He is not acting like Bush, he is acting like an American president.

    12. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      and Australia/Canada are less free then even the US. (Australia is filtering the net, arrests people who DRAW sex images of children,

      Settle down sport - there's no need to exaggerate. BigPuddle censors the 'net, but that entirely voluntary.

      If this is exaggeration and voluntary come to Germany. Here is drawn child pornography and written fictional stories treated as the real thing.

    13. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by calmofthestorm · · Score: 2

      State run, newscorp run, what's the difference?

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    14. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      Nobody has stopped freedom of speech. The subpoena is used to determine if a crime has occurred. Nobody has been charged with anything. I'd recommend a different action than "getting the hell out". Get elected and change the laws.

    15. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      Stop persisting this myth about Internet in Australia - seriously I swear everyone on Slashdot saw one article about it and therefore thinks it exists.

      It was proposed by a couple of senators. It was widely unpopular and the government knew it. It contributed to the Labor party almost losing the 2010 election. Mandatory filtering as a political position is essentially dead and buried - it never actually even got introduced as a BILL into Parliament, let alone passed into law. There's no way in hell it would get through the senate anyway. So please stop persisting this falsehood. The net in Australia is not filtered.

      Oh and incidentally, it's quite amusing that you think Westminster democracies such as Canada and Australia are less free than the US. Our political systems are far less corrupt, not run by lobby groups or big business, more accountable, more transparent and actually have a role for third and fourth parties to play. Also we aren't getting nudie scanned at airports, the government still needs a warrant to wiretap someone and frankly have more freedom to speak as we like without fear, despite the fact that it's not specifically enshrined in our Constitutions...

    16. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by walshy007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd recommend a different action than "getting the hell out". Get elected and change the laws.

      Anyone who is ruthless enough to actually be elected normally does not deserve the position. To win you must be a master of both public speaking and doublespeak. After concessions are made to your ethics in order to gain the required popularity to win it is a slippery slope and by the time you get there (if you do) you become just as bad as those that were in power before you.

      Not saying I have the solution to it, only that there are another set of problems to think about.

    17. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by FoxconnGuy · · Score: 1

      How about Sweden?

      Don't forget to bring the condoms

    18. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by X.25 · · Score: 1

      He is not acting like Bush, he is acting like an American president.

      If that is how you imagine American president should act like, you people are in serious trouble.

    19. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Torvac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      since he is just a corporate paid speaker like bush was, its no wonder. doesnt matter what president is "in power" if its still the same people around and behind him.

    20. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by hedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you'll notice from the subpoena, 2 of the names are Manning and Assange, the others are ones which I'm not familiar with. While the subpoena is somewhat light on the details, I would assume that whatever argument was given for the request complied with the normal rules. Otherwise they would have sent in a national security letter and avoided the courts.

      Under the Bush administration, they wouldn't have gotten a subpoena. Because they believed the President had unlimited powers when at war.

      Not that I'm thrilled with his performance, but a lot of that is the fault of people like you for failing to comprehend that there are differences, even if they're not as substantial as they ought to be. And at any rate, this is still a lot better than what McCain was offering up.

      Additionally, he has limited power as the President, he's been trying to close GITMO, but without the ability to move at least some of the inmates to US courts for trial and possible incarceration, it's really hard to get other countries to buy into taking them off our hands. Which is totally shocking that they'd expect us to eat our own cooking.

    21. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I swear everyone on Slashdot saw one article

      More like one article EVERY WEEK for most of 2010. "AU government wants to apply nation-wide filtering." "AU ministry releases blacklist of sites." "ISP volunteers to do test-run for the filtered internet." And so on.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody has stopped freedom of speech. The subpoena is used to determine if a crime has occurred. Nobody has been charged with anything. I'd recommend a different action than "getting the hell out". Get elected and change the laws.

      We're looking for evidence of a cr.... OH! Look at all these wikileaks supporters. We'll just monitor them to make sure they don't get criminally seditious.

    23. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Except that it is entirely plausible that the US government expects to find evidence of Manning and Assange et al. discussing Manning's alleged plan to raid the document storage before the fact. Since the government wants to prosecute Assange as an accomplice to espionage, this makes absolute sense, and is exactly the type of thing any government would do anywhere in the world, including, for example, the founding fathers themselves. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say the government cannot subpoena your private documents--and, in fact, they can and always have been able to!

      The Fourth Amendment merely says they need to have probable cause (i.e., get a warrant). Which, I would hope, any rational person could agree they do have in this case. Defendant allegedly committed crime; Defendant allegedly leaked documents to party X. Is it such a leap to assume party X may have actually conspired with Defendant to commit the crime?

      when you should get the hell out

      So, may I ask, what is your citizenship, where do you live, and if the US, what are your immediate plans for getting the hell out?

    24. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The subpoena is part of a witch hunt to find "subversives". The issuance of such should be considered the crime here...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    25. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Anyone notice Obama is acting a lot like Bush lately? You sound surprised, anything too good to be true usually is. Bush was a bush-leaguer compared to Obama.
      Obama's health-care system is basically take everything that was broken and keep it, throw out anything that was working.
      Obama's environmental record, well just look at the golf coast, he not only didn't stop it, he paved the road to ruin.
      Obama definately isn't sucking hind tit from the *IAA's either.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    26. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Additionally, he has limited power as the President, he's been trying to close GITMO, but without the ability to move at least some of the inmates to US courts

      Then perhaps he shouldnt have made that promise, eh?

    27. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Freedom is not unlimited anywhere, hate to break it to you. US is a heck of a lot better than many other places in this regard, and Im not just talking about places like China. We dont have net filtering, we dont have CCTVs everywhere, we are free to ridicule the president, burn our flag, etc.

      But yea, we have no freedoms at all, keep believing that. Im sure the man will be around shortly to cart you off for breaking that illusion.

    28. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by timbo234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Australia is filtering the net

      No we're not, the necessary legislation was never even introduced to parliament. Even if it was, and somehow managed to get voted through, it would be killed in the senate due to the changes brought about during the recent election - the government got its arse kicked over issues like this.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    29. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Tanuki64 · · Score: 2

      He is not acting like Bush, he is acting like an American president.

      If that is how you imagine American president should act like, you people are in serious trouble.

      Not how American presidents should act like, but how they act like. Regardless of name. The differences are marginal so if does not make sense to say 'Obama is acting like Bush' when he actually acts just like an average American president. Bush was not much worse than any president before him and Obama isn't much better.

    30. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

      Oh wow! The USA is better then Russia, China and even N. Korea? You guys set yourselves some pretty high standards then...

      Weakie leaks has endangered many lives.

      Unlike the US which has not just been accused of "endangering lives" without any facts whatsoever to back up the claim.
      We know for a fact that the US is directly responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the last 10 years only and destabilizing two countries so badly that the death toll runs in the hundreds of thousands. But never mind that, let's return to some more pressing issue, like the size of Assange's ego or whether wikileaks should have released that cable about Batman and Robin in Russia.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    31. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by mdragan · · Score: 1

      What!?! You honestly think that a country run by mafia, where journalists and protesters are arrested for writing/talking against certain members of the government gives a shit about individual freedom? You probably don't know what you are talking about.

    32. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Ironically the freest state might be the former soviet union, now known as the Russian Federation.

      You can't have the slightest idea of what's actually going on in Russia. Since 1993 more than 300 journalists and other media workers has been killed or has disappeared. Russia is one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists and among the worst at solving their murders. It is no secret that many of these has been critics of people in power. According to one of the cables leaked by wikileaks american diplomats claim that russian politicians pays the russian mafia to do their dirtywork.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

    33. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by carpefishus · · Score: 1

      Too bad it's so damn cold there.

      If you go I'll buy you a coat.

      --
      Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
    34. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      American presidents have been acting like this since the beginning of the 20th century.

    35. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

      I think somewhere in your argument was the idea that Canada was less free than Russia today.

      How many reporters has the Canadian government killed?

      Insightful indeed.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    36. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a large idealogical one...

    37. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: get elected and change the laws

      Forget it. The sheeple are too stupid to vote for for you.

      For example, all of the TSA groping would stop immediately if just 20% of the flying public went on strike and refused to fly. Unfortunately, you can't even get 20% to stop flying for a few weeks to effect change. Given that, you think you're going to get 51% of the vote by promising to preserve fundamental rights.

    38. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.

      To where is the only real question.

      Nobody made you keep permanent records of those discussions. Of course you have a right to privacy, but if you video tape everything you do and later give a court reason to subpoena you or search your residence, your own records would be used as evidence. Duh.

    39. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Buying Sealand might have seemed ridiculous when the Pirate Bay attempted it, but purchasing a micronation is starting to look more attractive with time. Getting internet access and a population and economy going are probably the major road blocks to it.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    40. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? Nothing about "OMG AUSSIES ARE FILTERED" just typical bullshit status updates.

    41. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Anyone notice Obama is acting a lot like Bush lately?

      To be honest I hadn't. But only the really extreme stuff reaches us foreigners over the ocean. From a distant standpoint Obama seems to have started a lot less wars and seems less entangled in profiteering from said wars.

    42. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by kanto · · Score: 1

      In this case the difference is that newscorps in the west have true competitors with their own voices. Also, you're less likely to get shot if your news piece digresses from the official line.

    43. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      We'll see who's laughing at us then.... [mutters - bloody yanks]
      Strewth Ya drongo, if Obama's internet freezes, Jilleroo (the bluey in the big house) 'll kick our doors down, rip our cables out and send them to him. I tell ya it's enough to make a bloke chunder in the old Pacific.

      --
      BM3
    44. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      orly? http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/01/08/1944209/Congresswoman-and-Staff-Gunned-Down

      (Yeah I know not the same thing at all, the timing was just too perfect to miss:-) )

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    45. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Because things take time to filter through, occur, and then for the news to reach us, it ain't instantaneous you know.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    46. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone notice Obama is acting a lot like Bush lately?

      Lately?!

      Obama voted for FISA2008 (aka, the "I love domestic NSA spying" bill) before he even became "Mr. President".

    47. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      Only small children, fools, and village idiots believe that war has been won.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    48. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 0

      If this is exaggeration and voluntary come to Germany. Here is drawn child pornography and written fictional stories treated as the real thing.

      Es ist ein Witz Schultz!

      It's a joke Schultz! (I zee nuffingk!)

      Wenn sie bis zum hals in der scheiße sind, und jemand uriniert auf sie .. sie ente - oder nehmen sie die pissen?

      When you're up to your neck in shit, and someone takes a leak.. do you duck - or take the piss?

      --

      Warning - irony is not detectable with magnets (and puns don't always translate)

    49. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Strewth Ya drongo, if Obama's internet freezes, Jilleroo (the bluey in the big house) 'll kick our doors down, rip our cables out and send them to him. I tell ya it's enough to make a bloke chunder in the old Pacific.

      Julia (the dingo in the big house) - there, fixed *that* for you.

      For those that don't speak strine (a fictional language invented by Paul Hogan and Barry Humphries to make fun of septic tanks) I'll translate for ewes....

      dingo == someone who, if you woke beside would make you want to chew your own arm off rather than wake.

      Julia == the empty headed dingo acting as Prime Minister "I can't think of a law he's broken, but he's a criminal" (talking about Julian Assange, she *is* a lawyer).

      Drongo == dropbear padding.

      Septic tank == a term used to denote respect and admiration.

    50. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing the executive and judicial branches of government. Go take a couple of civics lessons and then come back.

      Regardless of what the government wants a court still has to authorise this and must have good reason to do so. Judges don't arrive and leave with the presidents and aren't under orders from them either.

    51. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Anyone notice Obama is acting a lot like Bush lately?

      I'm hoping you're being sarcastic... should anyone be overly surprised that a Kennedy style candidate is just a different dog with the same leg action? But then I keep forgetting how many people actually bought the whole Camelot myth. (sigh).

      --

      The new Star Chamber - exclusive to News Corporation

    52. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by brirus · · Score: 1

      obviously there is a difference between obama and bush. I voted for Obama. I'd never vote for Bush. Bush lost two popular elections and served two terms as president. The shadow government was never elected, so we can't vote them out no matter how we cast our ballots. I'm a pacifist and i USED TO support gun control, but it sure is starting to look like we're running out of options for protecting ourselves from the billionaire liars and thieves that dominate all policy (foreign and domestic) and the courts that protect them.

    53. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      American presidents have been acting like this since the end of the 18th century.

      FTFY.

      (Seriously. John Adams was a DOUCHE).

    54. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So write a fucking executive order that they will face trial in the US. Or are executive orders only used for breaking election promises?

    55. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound Canadian. Eh.

    56. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, last I checked twitter doesn't actually validate its emails. Some jerk signed me up for twitter and I didn't even want it. I went and conquered it back by changing the password (since that was tied to my email). This means someone could just take some massive spam list, government's, organization's ,people they don't like's emails, hop behind a set of proxies or slave network - and just start creating twitter accounts to read the information the government wishes to censor (perhaps with a set of other random twitter accounts to follow)... delicious hypotheticals like spam on toast

    57. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Sure, unfortunately the voting system we Democracies operate under is lame (as in should be shot). In a party system, we can't vote for individual legislation, only for this or that rep/party. I mean yeah, the people doing the job matter to a certain degree, but not to the point we are voting for people instead of policies.

      So yes, as long as a policy can potentially find a way under the radar, or has the support of those with deep pocketses, it won't go away. This is because the system was designed with an uneducated population in mind, so it has serious flaws in terms of executing "the will of the people". It's ludicrous to even speak that quote in relation to party politics.

    58. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by timbo234 · · Score: 2

      Funnily enough I never said Internet Censorship had been defeated for ever and ever. I simply pointed out that Australia does not currently censor the internet and won't under the current political situation.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    59. Re:Shouldn't have a leg to stand on by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      >>>I swear everyone on Slashdot saw one article

      More like one article EVERY WEEK for most of 2010. "AU government wants to apply nation-wide filtering." "AU ministry releases blacklist of sites." "ISP volunteers to do test-run for the filtered internet." And so on.

      Ok fair enough, there were a crapload of articles. But they were all just ideas or proposals or rants by some random guy. Nothing that actually said 'yep, filter is happening'.

      Of course I don't blame you for getting the wrong impression. Slashdot reports stuff like this in an incredibly sensationalized and hyped up manner. Also, it was quick to post any 'filtering might happen' article, but neglected to post many articles about the reality of the situation and the fact that the idea pretty much got dropped. So I fully understand WHY many on here got the impression that they did. Nonetheless it hurts to see Australia continually attacked on here for something that doesn't exist. By all means things aren't perfect here, but it'd at least be nice to get our name dragged through the mud for a REAL reason instead ;)

  5. Icelandic MP supeanad by SomethingOrOther · · Score: 4, Informative


    Looks like they are requesting personal data of an Icelandic Member of Parliment
    I see a minor diplomatic incident on the horizon.

    --
    Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
    Don't believe what you read is the truth.
    1. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, US diplomats were already tasked with illegally obtaining DNA and credit card numbers of other countries civil servants and politicians at the UN. That didn't seem to cause any diplomatic incident at all, so I really doubt the IP address of some Icelandic MP will even cause a ripple.

    2. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US were really worried about foreign policy, much of the information wikileaks has wouldn't exist.

    3. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Haedrian · · Score: 0

      Iceland? That's part of the country called europe right? How many nukes do they have? Do they have oil or other stuff we need?

      Yes I'm being satrical.

    4. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Husgaard · · Score: 5, Funny

      They do not have nukes, they have volcanoes.

      When they triggered one of them last year, it caused a lot more disruption to European air traffic than 9/11 did to US air traffic. And they know how to use their volcanoes right: During the incident Reykjavik airport was one of the few airports in Europe still open.

      I am pretty sure this was retaliation against the Brits abusing anti-terror legislation to freeze Icelandic assets.

      If you do not understand satire, you should not have read this...

    5. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      Iceland? That's part of the country called europe right? How many nukes do they have? Do they have oil or other stuff we need?

      Yes I'm being satrical.

      We know. If you weren't, you'd be asking your underlings on the USG, not us.

    6. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

      Satire aside, they have three things you need, actually - location, location, location. While after the Cold War, Keflavik Naval Air Station and the SOSUS sensors stretching from Iceland to Greenland and the UK have been more or less deactivated, you sure as hell wanna have access to this again as soon as control of the North Atlantic becomes a concern again. And you do not want to mess with the Vikings. Remember the Cod Wars - they didn't hesitate to take on the British Navy with their coastguard cutters in the dispute about their territorial waters, which, by chance, was actually resolved only when Iceland threatened to throw the US out of Keflavik. So, treat carefully there, if nothing else, they'll be after you with Viking battleaxes...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    7. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      They do not have nukes, they have volcanoes.

      Weapons and power sources.... me thinks they might have to be freed from the yoke of oppression. Anarchy is yesterday's Communism.

      What is this satire thing you speak of? Is there a newsletter?

    8. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by JustOK · · Score: 1

      the US doesn't like foreign policy. That's why they think they're trying to take over the world, that way there would be no foreign policy.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    9. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes they had very cool net cutters. Strange how the UK wanted distant oil rights, but Iceland was not going to get the same distant fishing rights :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2

      Diplomats or CIA agents with official cover? Sometimes it's hard to tell a difference...

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    11. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Posting=!Working · · Score: 0

      Great advice for all the other supervillains:

      When picking out a location for your secret base for world domination, use a regular volcano, NOT a skull shaped one. It's much easier to get away with it.

      In a related story:
      James Bond shot dead on first day of new assignment.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
    12. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Citation, the US for better or for worse has the right to refuse to issue papers for any diplomat they wish. In practice we don't do that a whole lot unless the point is to send a message to their politicians that we're really unhappy about something.

      Just because we have the UN in NYC, doesn't mean that they have the right to violate our laws. It just means that they have immunity from prosecution, doesn't mean we can't expel them from the country if they go too far over the line, however we choose to define it.

    13. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was HILLARY CLINTON who was caught stealing credit card numbers.

      Can you give me some more details on that? While I read about what IamTheRealMike described in his post I can't remember hearing that Hillary was caught stealing credit card numbers. How did it happen? Did a diplomat catch her rummaging trough his wallet?

    14. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If slashdot is to be believed, we shouldnt HAVE foreign policy other than "We are friends with you" and "We are about to invade you".

    15. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like they are requesting personal data of an Icelandic Member of Parliament

      I see a minor diplomatic incident on the horizon.

      Birgitta Jonsdottir has quite the attitude and sounds rather full of herself. "Do they realize I am a member of parliament in Iceland?" "It is completely unacceptable for the US justice department to flex its muscles like this."

      Maybe she should take a moment to reflect that the government of the United States considers it completely unacceptable for a member of the government of a friendly-aligned foreign nation to associate with and support an organization that is releasing improperly obtained secret documents that are the property of the government of the United States.

      And she's seriously demanding a meeting with the U.S. Ambassador? I wonder if she's arrogant enough and stupid enough to go meet him inside the U.S. embassy?

      Seeing as she is used to the weather in Iceland how do you think she'd fare in a warmer climate? Somewhere like Guantanamo Bay for instance?

    16. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by budgenator · · Score: 1

      What's the problem, She publicly admitting She's a former Wikileaks volunteer, we know her name and almost all of the other requested data. Seriously if We don't know some of the data, Twitter wouldn't either. Admitting to being a former Wikileaks volunteer, is like admitting to being a person formerly engaged in espionage and other subversive activities against the US, so I'm not sure what the deal is. I'm sure She's unlikely to fly into JFK, unless the pilot spills his coffee on the radio, even then Gander is just as likely. Aren't tweets about as private as posting something on a billboard anyways?

      Seriously this just sounds like some Narcissistic Grandstanding on her part, if she didn't expect stuff like this happening well she must just be stupid.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Aluminum, their abundant geo-thermal energy make Iceland a top producer of Aluminum

      ... Abundant geothermal and hydropower sources have attracted substantial foreign investment in the aluminum sector and boosted economic growth, although the financial crisis has put several investment projects on hold. Much of Iceland's economic growth in recent years came as the result of a boom in domestic demand following the rapid expansion of the country's financial sector. Iceland

      In fact it's probably easier to work around no Oil than No Aluminum.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    18. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      What on earth are you talking about? The incident I mentioned had nothing to do with refusing to issue papers or foreign diplomats violating US laws. As for your citation request, here you go.

    19. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think it has some good ideas in it.

    20. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satire aside, they have three things you need, actually - location, location, location. While after the Cold War, Keflavik Naval Air Station and the SOSUS sensors stretching from Iceland to Greenland and the UK have been more or less deactivated, you sure as hell wanna have access to this again as soon as control of the North Atlantic becomes a concern again. And you do not want to mess with the Vikings. Remember the Cod Wars - they didn't hesitate to take on the British Navy with their coastguard cutters in the dispute about their territorial waters, which, by chance, was actually resolved only when Iceland threatened to throw the US out of Keflavik. So, treat carefully there, if nothing else, they'll be after you with Viking battleaxes...

      Really good point, only slightly let down by the fact that the Vikings came from Scandinavia, not Iceland.

    21. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by spammeister · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that it was James May who triggered that Volcano.

      Top Gear, Series 15, Episode 1.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFuYJ90BC0Y

      --
      I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
    22. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by hannson · · Score: 1

      Hah stupid foreigners you ain't seen nothing yet - don't fuck with us! You've been warned!

    23. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by ego+centrik · · Score: 2

      + they also figured out how to trigger a bank crash to force a world economy depression. you have to face it: icelanders are the ultimate terrorists. icelandic cold war has already begun.
      _ nuke them, wipe them out + open a new disney world before they go into cloud computing. just do it.

    24. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      I don't know if she was caught actually stealing credit card numbers but she did request other US diplomats to steal the credit card numbers (and DNA samples among other things) of foreign diplomats.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    25. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's like saying FDR didn't actually imprison japanese-and-german-Americans. He just ordered other diplomats to do it.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    26. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mince words.

      It was HILLARY CLINTON who was caught stealing credit card numbers. Gee, a Clinton breaking the law - I'm shocked. (Almost as shocked that Bush was a dumb president - pretty much called that one back in 2000. My brother voted for him; I refused.)

      So you voted for the guy who flunked out of divinity school because the guy with the MBA from Harvard was the dumb one?

      If Bush II was so stupid, why is the "brilliant" Obama pretty much keeping to every single major Bush policy? Gitmo's still open, combat troops are still in Iraq, "illegal wiretaps" continue, the "unsustainable" deficits we had under W have been quintupled, we're doing a "surge" in Afghanistan just like we did in Iraq, and to top it all off Obama just signed an extension to the "Bush tax cuts".

      If Bush was so stupid and wrong, why hasn't Obama reversed ONE significant Bush policy?

    27. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by JustOK · · Score: 1

      well, I think we should tax all foreigners not living in our country.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    28. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Silly slashdotters.

      Those aren't mutually exclusive!

    29. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      When picking out a location for your secret base for world domination, use a regular volcano, NOT a skull shaped one. It's much easier to get away with it.

      Evil Overlord FAIL.

      "171. I will not locate a base in a volcano, cave, or any other location where it would be ridiculously easy to bypass security by rappelling down from above."

    30. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Tru' dat. You don't get between an Icelander and his fish. What the hell was the EU thinking?

      --
      That is all.
    31. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During the incident Reykjavik airport was one of the few airports in Europe still open.

      I know, I'm picking nits, but I just gotta point it out: the international airport is in Keflavík, about 40 km (25 miles for you non-metric folks) from Reykjavík. Reykjavík does have an airport of its own, too, but it's a small one that's only used for domestic flights, and some flights to Greenland.

      That said, yes, don't fuck with the Icelanders... vikings *and* a bunch of volcanos, several of them ready to blow or even overdue, so be careful! ;)

    32. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you. Some diplomats at the UN are getting moved around (diplomats are just given different jobs or sent to a different post). Some officials have lost or are about to lose their jobs.

      Serves em right.

    33. Re:Icelandic MP supeanad by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Really good point, only slightly let down by the fact that the Vikings came from Scandinavia, not Iceland.

      Vikings may of come from Scandinavia, but one of the places they settled was Iceland. There is little evidence that there was anyone else there. Once settled in Iceland, did they lose the right to the "Vikings" brand? Did they sell it to Minnesota?

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iceland

  6. Just another day... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... in the US government's life of doing whatever the hell they want without a court involved if they're caught with their pants down. But that's not what's scary - it's that this will happen without objections, other than a silent whisper from the victims here, effectively quenched by a public that wants to read more about Khloe Kardashian getting her own reality show. Heck, it hasn't even been established in a court that what has been leaked could be endangering lives. But who cares?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Just another day... by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 1

      RTFA: There was a court order, you can see a PDF of the judges' order linked right from the article. And you say there were no objections, but there were, by Twitter, who insisted that the subjects of the court-ordered release of data be given notice and the opportunity to appeal. Also, the court does not have to find that there are lives in danger when issuing a subpoena, only that there is reason to believe that a criminal act has occurred.

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    2. Re:Just another day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA: There was a court order

      RTFAA (again): there only was a court order because Twitter chose to get the courts involved. The original request came directly from the government.

      And you say there were no objections, but there were, by Twitter, who insisted that the subjects of the court-ordered release of data be given notice and the opportunity to appeal.

      Indeed. The initial request was for Twitter to turn over the information without even notifying the victims. Twitter declined, and the court agreed with them.

      Also, the court does not have to find that there are lives in danger when issuing a subpoena, only that there is reason to believe that a criminal act has occurred.

      Of course. That's not to stop the propaganda machine from saying otherwise, though.

    3. Re:Just another day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading the subpoena you will see after the United States Attorney's cover page the subpoena clearly marked with the header "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria Division". The first line of the subpoena then goes on to say and I quote

      This matter having come before the Court pursuant to an application under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703, which application requests the issuance of an order under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(d)

      Section 2703(d) being the requirements needed for a court order. Oh and it is signed by Theresa C. Buchanan United States Magistrate Judge.

      Even TFA that you suposedly read states the the request was filled by the Justice Department in U.S. District Court 14.

      That's not to stop your propaganda machine from saying otherwise, though.

    4. Re:Just another day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... in the US government's life of doing whatever the hell they want without a court involved if they're caught with their pants down.

      If you had RTFA, you'd notice it's a court order. In this case they are actually following the constitution here

    5. Re:Just another day... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... in the US government's life of doing whatever the hell they want without a court involved

      This was a court order; in fact the first link in the summary was to the court order. Page 2 basically states "This is a court order".

      I am at a loss for words sometimes when people can assert things in direct contradiction with the article, and get modded up for it. Real "interesting", i suppose.

  7. Twitter knew since December 14th by data2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Twitter has known about this for >3 weeks, but they were forbidden to tell the affected persons about it. It seems like to they had to go to court just to give them this information.
    News like this just makes me sad about the state of liberties in the USA.

    1. Re:Twitter knew since December 14th by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      That's part of the bullshit system we have of "National Security Letters".

    2. Re:Twitter knew since December 14th by Espen · · Score: 2

      Is there an obvious follow-up question which need to be raised: What other organisations have been similarly subpoenaed but didn't or haven't been able to challenge it. Is it really realsitic that this is only about twitter?

    3. Re:Twitter knew since December 14th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt it, I bet facebook gave away the information without a second thought.

    4. Re:Twitter knew since December 14th by creativeHavoc · · Score: 1

      That's the PATRIOT ACT for you... there is a reason any public body or even many private companies in Canada no longer allow any data to go to the USA. Never mind the ability to take private information, the fact that by default the law says you cannot inform the user... it's frightening. Even small things, like my university which uses those stupid iClickers had to set up an authorization server locally because the are not allowed to send student data into the states any more.

      --
      insight through the mind
  8. To quote Padme... by bonekeeper · · Score: 2

    "So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause."

    1. Re:To quote Padme... by Notch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who's applauding, though? From what I can tell, it's mostly just a stunned silence punctuated by occasional mutterings of "wait, isn't this wrong?".

    2. Re:To quote Padme... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't "democracy dies" it was "liberty dies".
      Democracy is just tyranny of the majority.

    3. Re:To quote Padme... by Cwix · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mosey around the intertubz for a while. Slashdot has been keeping the discussion "reasonable" in comparison to some of the other forums out there. Seems to be quite a few people who would like nothing better then to send anyone even remotely involved straight to gitmo for some "enhanced questioning."

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    4. Re:To quote Padme... by Notch · · Score: 1

      I mostly frequent European forums and communities. Am I correct in understanding that the people who want Assange assassinated are the same people who shout the loudest about democracy and freedom? :-/

    5. Re:To quote Padme... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ironic that you would quote something from a product of the MAFIAA, in this circumstance.
      On another note, does anyone else remember when we used to openly criticize the CCCP for pulling this kind of crap? Has democracy really become too great a burden to bear?

    6. Re:To quote Padme... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      I believe it's called psychological projection.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    7. Re:To quote Padme... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The US has had a problem with kangaroo courts for quite some time now, it's just that in recent years they've been less opaque than usual. There's a view that the government would never accuse an innocent person of committing a felony, so an acquittal is really just a failure of the justice system. Not to mention that "justice delayed is justice denied." Or some such bullshit.

      There's a lot of people out there that are either deluded into thinking that they can't accidentally be accused or don't care as long as one of the accused is actually guilty and is willing to toss the others under the bus to get a conviction.

    8. Re:To quote Padme... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. These people aren't even being charged with anything, so far it's all just gathering evidence for Manning's trial. And he is undeniably guilty of treason, no matter what you think about the value of those leaked materials. Note also that this all goes through proper channels such as courts. If anything, this is the exact opposite of Gitmo and other similar extra-judicial processes we've seen earlier, which truly were abominable.

      Democracy is alive and well so far, thank you very much.

    9. Re:To quote Padme... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kevin Mitnick comes to mind, four and a half years in prison without being charged, nothings changed as you say

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

      Mitnick served five years in prison — four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinement — because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone".[10] He was released on January 21, 2000. During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone. Mitnick fought this decision in court, eventually winning a ruling in his favor, allowing him to access the Internet.

    10. Re:To quote Padme... by bonekeeper · · Score: 1

      Just as legal are prison sentences and public lashes for "adultery" when a married muslim woman is raped in some countries. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is "right".

  9. Hey Remember in those books... by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you have a facist/nazi/evil/whatever state you have people getting taken from their homes for not supporting the glorious leader/fuhrer/overlord/whatever and protesting?

    Good times.

    1. Re:Hey Remember in those books... by lul_wat · · Score: 2

      Oh I think I had a book like that on my Kindle, 19-somethingerather. I'll turn it on and get the name for you.

      Strange it doens't seem to be there anymore

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    2. Re:Hey Remember in those books... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      Same thing happens in communism. Really any concentration of power in the hands of politicians goes to their head and they abuse the shit out of it.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    3. Re:Hey Remember in those books... by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was never there, Winston.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    4. Re:Hey Remember in those books... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      Forget fiction, how about real US-supported regimes? I should point out that I could have picked plenty of others, those were just the ones that came to mind.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Hey Remember in those books... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about one man though.

      This is about an institution which has become corrupted and doesn't know how to reallign itself to handle what the world has become. So in its attempt, it subverts the very things it espouses to protect and stand for. Kangaroo Government or an Illusionary Republic would seem fitting, but it's much more complex than 2 word descriptors.

      Key point to note out of all of this: It isn't getting better; It's getting worse. And at an accelerated rate.

    6. Re:Hey Remember in those books... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USSR wasn't communist. Neither is China or North Korea. Communism is not a synonymous for dictatorship (or democracy), just like capitalism isn't for democracy (or dictatorship).

  10. Encrypt? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the Wikileaks people be encrypting their messages?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Encrypt? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      They used an air gap via a discreet postal network ect.
      Its one way, you send the data out.
      Their irc had SSL encryption. Once its 'public', chat away.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Encrypt? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That doesn't work if it has to cross borders. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US, the customs agents have the legal right to open any and all packages crossing the border.

    3. Re:Encrypt? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      You burn the data on a dvd burner you paid cash for, on media you paid cash for posting from a location with no camera.
      The box is opened, reposted by trusted wikileaks people over a 'hop' network x times.
      One copy would get out if customs detected one for been 'burned' media.
      The main downfall would be a dvd burner that was paid for by CC/registered and some unique number got burned with dvd.
      Or it was burned at work ect.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. Dear Governments, Here is how to control the Web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Step 1: Pressure internet companies into violating individual rights
    for the sake of security. e.g. withhold money saved online, block
    websites.

    Step 2: Play into anti-free-market sentiments of the Internet users.
    Whine about how the companies that make the Internet possible are the
    real threats to freedom of information on the Internet. Cite examples
    of companies which were pressured into violating the individual
    rights.

    Step 3: Justify government control of the Internet as a measure
    against excessive human greed.

    Step 4: Take control. Decide who can see what on the Internet.

    Step 5: POWER!!!

  12. Twitter was to spread... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/01/state_dept_launching_democracy.html
    ..the State Department says, it's launching a Twitter contest to "tweet what you think democracy is in 140 characters or less." The person who gets the most "unique re-tweets" will receive a Flip Video HD Camcorder."
    "Evan Williams [co-founder of Twitter] says Twitter fundamental to government"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8563109.stm
    "open exchange of information will prevail in most regions, but we don't have any specific plans in China or other areas where we're blocked"
    All sounded so cool when it was aimed at ....
    Welcome back to reality. Enjoy the gems from WikiLeaks, note whats missing and welcome to the honeypot.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Twitter was to spread... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter didn't let me use my desired tweet, something wrong with their validation.

      "; drop table democracy; --

    2. Re:Twitter was to spread... by darjen · · Score: 1

      perhaps someone show go tweet some support for Wikileaks. would love to see the state department renig on their promise if that were to become the most re-tweeted.

  13. I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediately by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, at least, I'd hand them a gigantic picture of a whale. "Sorry, your legal standing is over capacity."

  14. What??? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they are demanding the personal information of a Non-US citizen, that's not in the country and did not access Twitter from within the United States? Nor did any of them commit any sort of crime on US soil. Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?

    1. Re:What??? by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      So they are demanding the personal information of a Non-US citizen, that's not in the country and did not access Twitter from within the United States? Nor did any of them commit any sort of crime on US soil. Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?

      You could test it by painting a picture of the Prophet on her belly and posting the video on Youtube.... is Saudi Arabia in the middle east?

    2. Re:What??? by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Ive used this same argument before, Im not surprised no one has responded.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    3. Re:What??? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's the fact that Twitter (and its servers) are in the U.S. that gives them the ability to do this.

    4. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes it could. The US wouldn't extradite her and Twitter would be unlikely to comply, but what exactly do you think prevents a country from arbitrarily leveling charges at whomever they please?

      In this case, it's the US making a demand of a US based company, so it's pretty much a given that yes, they can do it. And yes, they will get away with it.

    5. Re:What??? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Yes, It's just unlikely to happen because it's unlikely to be successful. You really have to read the laws in question, a lot of American laws have a phrase like, "for anyone in the United States or it's Territories ..." for those you have to be inside the US, for others there isn't such a phrase; I believe murder or rape is murder or rape to the USG no matter where it's committed. Im sure that the US isn't that special and other countries have laws the aply outside their boarders as well. Of course IANAL and that's what you need, a good lawyer to consult with if your worried about such things personally.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:What??? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      And why aren't they compelling twitter to give them the account information of the Reporters that released the information in their newspapers? Are they not just as guilty, if not more so, than anyone at Wikileaks?

    7. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they are demanding the personal information of a Non-US citizen, that's not in the country and did not access Twitter from within the United States? Nor did any of them commit any sort of crime on US soil. Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?

      Sure. As long as twitter had a sufficient presence there.

      If Twitter blows off a request from Elbonia, they can easily get away with it. On the other hand, if they refuse a request from the US government, then people with guns and badges show up and seize all their servers and arrest their CEO or whatever.

    8. Re:What??? by westlake · · Score: 1

      So they are demanding the personal information of a Non-US citizen, that's not in the country and did not access Twitter from within the United States?

      You are not a citizen of the United States.

      You are not a person within the jurisdiction of the United States.

      What rights against a search of Twitter's U.S. based servers can you claim in a U.S. court?

      Nor did any of them commit any sort of crime on US soil.

      The standard for an ordinary search warrant is "probable cause." You aren't prosecuting a crime, you are conducting an investigation.

      You don't escape prosecution under American law by committing your crimes by radio control from across the border. The geek's understanding of jurisdiction has a peculiarly 19th Century flavor.

    9. Re:What??? by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      So they are demanding the personal information of a Non-US citizen, that's not in the country and did not access Twitter from within the United States? Nor did any of them commit any sort of crime on US soil. Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?

      Uh, yes? Not being a US-citizen makes it even easier to intercept their communications. However, this didn't involve any interception, and I'm not even sure you have legal recourse if it were, being A. The Internet, and B. Twitter's records, not yours. There are specific laws protecting your confidentiality with others, and please don't act surprised that Twitter is under no such obligation.

      You have the Internet the way it is in one hand and you want some legal right to privacy on it in the other. So confusing, are you guys for or against Internet regulation??

    10. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?

      Pics, or it didn't happen ;)

    11. Re:What??? by juletre · · Score: 1

      I am not sure, you'll need to provide some pictures of your wife in said bikini so I can investigate further..

      --
      "he, who has quotes in his signature, is a douche" - unknown.
    12. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Twitter was based in their country, then most likely. However, as long as your wife never goes there, who the hell cares?

    13. Re:What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?

      If the Twitter was hosted by the Middle Eastern company, then yes.

  15. Double standard in the US of chinA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the kind of thing done by a repressive, communist or fascist government?
    Would not our government denounce any other government for doing this?

    "Yes you have the right to free speech but only the speech approved by the speech police."

    Wikkileaks outing the illegal and criminal activities of our and any government is good.
    Government and large corporations need to be held accountable for the criminal, immoral and evil they do.
    those who make and enforce the rules need to be held to a hire standard.
    If the government does not obey the law it loose all credibility and the legitimately enforce it.
    Wikkileaks however should take more care in what the released and spend more time with redaction.

  16. Re:Dear Governments, Here is how to control the We by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 0

    wut no profit????

  17. amazing by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

    I love how a document marked "Limited Official Use" makes it onto the internet and then here, I guess the biggest problem with our government is apparently nobody can read....

  18. The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by 3seas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What is happening here is the application of war tactics applied by the US defense department, only Wikileaks has no WMD's only words. Perhaps the defense department can justify its military spending by using its stock of WMD's???

    There is a genuine and serious need for psychiatric evaluation, constraints and care of what is apparently many in government, specifically the defense department and defense contractors like Halliburton.

    Consider the following and how so far out of line it really is, to the point of insanity. Who are we ever going to go to war with that would justify this level of military spending? Add to the US spending that of allies that the US would not go to war against. And then consider what the last link presents.

    Clearly, absolutely, without doubt, there is solid evidence of insanity of some in very dangerous positions. They need to be identified, removed from their positions and treated for their mental disorders.

    What's wrong with this picture?
    http://bit.ly/ey8svA
    http://bit.ly/hHIwSs
    http://bit.ly/9BDHA7
    http://bit.ly/hsrMaE
    vs.
    http://bit.ly/8iTYUu (even if adjusted for inflation [x2]) Maybe the way to deflate so called terrorism is, instead of acts of destruction. correct real problems.

    1. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by Cwix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's wrong with this picture?

      The fact that you posted shortened urls, that no one is gonna look at?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think Slashcode should auto-detect these idiotic URL shorteners and either just refuse to accept them like it does for "all caps" posts and the like or preemptively down-mod the post by 2 points at least...

    3. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 2

      Not that surprising. The whole free market/neocon/neo-liberal agenda is an almost exact one on one match with the diagnostic criteria for sociopathy. I can already predict one of the outcomes of such a psychiatric evaluation: a significantly above average percentage of sociopathic tendencies. That's bad enough but most of us have had decades of sociopathic indoctrination in the form of exposure to this political ideology (Americans more so than others) so even people who do not have intrinsic sociopathic tendencies have internalized a lot of those "values" (or rather lack thereof) through socialization and incessant cultural reinforcement.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    4. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell did you use shortened URLs?

      Did you know you can make a link by typing in something like this:

      <a href="http://google.com/">link</a>

    5. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not just values, it's the entire skewed outlook on history and the role of the government.

      It's a crazy outlook, where taxes are a violation of rights, but, you know, detaining people without charging them for crime is not.

      I just want to shake the goddamn Tea Party idiots and say 'Do you actually know why we revolted from England? And if you say 'taxes' I will shoot you in head.'

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      It does seem that perhaps instead of modding the GP up, they ought to have posted a comment that the links are safe to look at. Probably would've been more useful. Personally, I know better than to click on links like that which don't offer a preview.

    7. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Authoritarians don't need evaluation. We already know that they are sociopaths by nature. The people that need evaluation and therapy are the ones who vote for and enable them. The ones who actually do their dirty business. It is the collective that is ill. The politicians arise from that. We will have fascism because that is what the people want. Not the other way around. It doesn't have to be forced on them at all.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All links are save to look at:
      link nr. 1
      link nr. 2
      link nr. 3
      link nr. 4
      vs.
      link nr. 5

    9. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      US military spending isn't about defence, it's about getting elected by making jobs. There is nothing crazy about wanting to waste taxpayer money to increase your chances of re-election. Morally bankrupt and criminal, but not crazy.

    10. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by Spad · · Score: 1

      Well duh, the people being taxed are Real Americans, whereas the people being detained are filthy treasonous terrorists who hate America.

    11. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! But Slashcode (and many other forum softwares) could also auto-resolve those silly shortened links...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    12. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by 3seas · · Score: 1

      Tweet them long urls...... if you can....
      Or maybe twitter is not a place to post?

      If everyone shuts down their communications, nobody will know anything....

    13. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by trydk · · Score: 1

      I think Slashcode should auto-detect these idiotic URL shorteners and either just refuse to accept them like it does for "all caps" posts and the like or preemptively down-mod the post by 2 points at least...

      ... or follow them and display the final addresses instead?

    14. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      ... or follow them and display the final addresses instead?

      Which would open up a vector for attack on Slashdot itself by making it access malicious websites.

    15. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2

      That would open up an attack vector on Slashdot itself by making it access potentially malicious websites. At present there is no need for Slashcode to attempt connections anywhere.

    16. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Coming to think of it, you're right. Slash is better left as it is.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    17. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Actually, the analysis I was thinking of was simply to have a list of these sites (there is thankfully only a rather limited number of them) and to check against it. One could also create a "short URL" digest periodically from the database of posts to see if there are any new ones cropping up or simply to allow mods to flag such crap at moderation time and compose the list from such flagged posts. Or something like it. There are many options that do not involve actual connections by Slashcode and which are fairly cheap to implement.

      A truly comprehensive solution would be to create a ranking/moderation system for all external links embedded in posts which would allow people to get an idea of the value of the link by simply glancing at it. Mods could assign tags to the links (like "URL shortener" or "Ad infested" etc) and rate the quality of the link itself (independent of the post). If a separate database was kept, then you could get auto-categorization going from it for new URLs people insert, etc.

    18. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      Umm im sure a lot of dems and reps will get the answer wrong too, whats your point?

      The point of the tea party is a big FU middle finger to both parties, because they both are so corrupt and ingrained with corporates.

      Dont bag the only possible 3rd party movement. The current two suck ass.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    19. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The point of the tea party is a big FU middle finger to both parties, because they both are so corrupt and ingrained with corporates.

      Um, only in Delusional Land.

      The Tea Party is the Republican base seized by the Koch brothers and Fox News. It's large corporations outright operating the Republican base.

      It's more corporate than the actual Republican party, which at least was only indirectly corporate.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    20. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by design1066 · · Score: 0

      So everyone with a different opinion than you should be evaluated by the thought police?

    21. Re:The need for psychiatric evaluation of gov... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not a police officer. I think they should be evaluated by the thought vigilantes.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  19. It was coming sooner or later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new fascist overlords.

  20. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Twitter has been ordered to produce

    The following customer or subscriber account information for each account associated with Wikileaks; ...

    Were I Twitter, I would send them thousands of account records -- Every user that has ever mentioned Wikileaks via Twitter and let them sort it out themselves.

    The order said they must produce the information, but did not specify that the info must not be anonymized, or mixed in with thousands of other accounts.

  21. Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    In case everyone has forgotten it is against the law to release classified documents in the US and in most other nations. This includes people who assisted in the release making them an accomplice to the crime. PFC Bradley Manning who stole the documents and sent them to Wiki will likely either be put to DEATH or sentence to life at hard labor.. Even if you are glad the "MAN" got his . It is still against the law and subject to the law. Until someone changes that law. Just like all the attacks on companies who pulled support of Wiki, all the ISPs have to keep information about everywhere you go for over two years. Every byte you transmit or receive. Chances are they already know who all were in on it. We are not talking about M$ or the RIAA we are talking about "A" federal government. I suggest looking up ESPIONAGE. Again why it this a surprise??

  22. Does anyone need more reason to quit social media? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. The connections you make, the things you read, everything. The government has too much power and by indulging in these useless social media activities, people are making themselves into potential targets by participating in them. Say you were curious about wikileaks and subscribed to Assange's twitter. Well guess what, now the government knows who you are, you are on yet another list and only because you were curious about what he had to say.

    I'm not condemning social media as much as I am condemning this sort of behavior from government. But while the government IS behaving this way, people should be more careful in response.

  23. Mountain out of a molehill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this normal? I mean if the government is building a case against Manning, they are probably going to subpoena companies that they think have evidence that will help their case. The three are hardly just "supporters" of Wikileaks, they were named producers of the "Collateral Murder" video.

    If this were the police state people think the US has become, they wouldn't need subpoenas. The government would have just raided the place.

    1. Re:Mountain out of a molehill. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      "The government would have just raided the place." -
      A public trial rolls back the public perception of whistleblowing protection laws and corrects past misunderstandings about feee speech - very chilling, final and wonderfully legal.
      Raids make people sit up, blogs/sites remember the names, keep details about their final work, foreign accredited journalists and domestic citizen journalists sniff around finding witnesses, details leak again....

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Mountain out of a molehill. by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 2

      If this were the police state people think the US has become, they wouldn't need subpoenas. The government would have just raided the place.

      Yes, let's not pretend the USG doesn't respect the rules of national and international law. I mean it's not like they say f... the law whenever it suits them, it's not like we could accuse them of torture, illegal renditions, pressuring foreign governments into discontinuing criminal investigations against American officials, distorting or plain ignoring international law, unlawful killings of foreign citizens, holding people for years without any regard for any laws whatsoever, illegally spying on American citizens.
      Oh wait...

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    3. Re:Mountain out of a molehill. by DavidTC · · Score: 2

      It's not like we can't accuse them of violating the law in this very case.

      Mannings is being held in inhumane conditions, and has been for several months. He's forbidden from exercising in his cell, he's kept in solitary confinement, he's forbidden from having sheets and pillow.

      Basically, they took every single thing that a prison can do as punishment (Although he's been a model prisoner) and as safety (He is not even slightly suicidal or dangerous and there's no grounds for denying him bedsheets) and did it to him, and then added some things that you can't do to prisoners, like forbid them from exercising in their cell.

      About the only thing that's justifiably is maybe keeping him away from other prisoners. Everything else is clearly designed to punish someone who has not had his trial start.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:Mountain out of a molehill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manning's solitary confinement is par for the course for most people put under the punishment under military law.

      Or do you really buy that sensationalist schlock Glenn Greenwald is trying to pass of?

      If you really cared about Manning's condition, do a quick google search for more details on his detainment. You'd fine it isn't as inanely brutal as you or Greenwald paint it.

      Not that I condone solitary confinement, but I do despise self-serving hyperbole you know?

    5. Re:Mountain out of a molehill. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, in your universe, we PUNISH people without actually having a trial first.

      You goddamn fascist asshole.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  24. Rememeber 2007! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Yahoo executives grilled by US Congress over giving up private info of email accounts to China, which was linked to two guys jailed for "leaking state secrets."
    May be twitter can use that as a defense?

    1. Re:Rememeber 2007! by Steeltoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course not! When it's China doing it, then it's "the bad guys". When it's USA, it's "the good guys".

      Do as we tell you, but don't do as we do..

    2. Re:Rememeber 2007! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I remember. And what I remember is that the request for information was a lot different in the Yahoo case and this subpoena. Comparing the two is like comparing the grilling of steroid using baseball players by the US Congress and China's human rights violations. All important things, but unfortunately not related.

    3. Re:Rememeber 2007! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      When Yahoo executives grilled by US Congress over giving up private info of email accounts to China, which was linked to two guys jailed for "leaking state secrets." May be twitter can use that as a defense?

      No, you don't understand. *China*, that evil, godless Communist state demanded the info. Now, the Freedom-Loving(TM), God-Fearing(TM) United States of America(TM - held by MAFIAA) wants the info, so everything is a-okay.

  25. Quash by russotto · · Score: 1

    If Twitter doesn't move to quash this, fuck them.

  26. another straw on a mountain of straw by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    Isn't this normal? I mean if the government is building a case against Manning, they are probably going to subpoena companies that they think have evidence that will help their case. The three are hardly just "supporters" of Wikileaks, they were named producers of the "Collateral Murder" video.

    If this were the police state people think the US has become, they wouldn't need subpoenas. The government would have just raided the place.

    Normal for a hypocritical government perhaps - but other countries were denied access to US records and personnel when they were investigating serious crimes that actually did involve deaths (Nugan Hand coronial inquest and inquiry). When we want information - US says fuck you, when the US wants information the US says fuck you. This is not going to end well.

    1. Re:another straw on a mountain of straw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this isn't the US demanding records from another country. It's the US government subpoenaing the records of Twitter, an American company that follows American laws. These messages where from people who agreed to Twitter's terms of usage when they signed up.

    2. Re:another straw on a mountain of straw by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

      Who ever agreed to take it up the ass from the US government? I feel when the US gov or its members no longer commits crimes then they can start dealing with other peoples crimes until then STFU.

  27. U.S. Department of Comedy _ by ego+centrik · · Score: 2

    The Order states among other things, that _

    "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application and this Order are sealed until otherwise ordered by the Court, and that Twitter shall not disclose the existence of the application or this Order of the Court, or the existence of the investigation, to the listed subscriber or to any other person, unless and until authorized to do so by the Court"

    _ and within a couple of hours you can find the copy all over the Net, as usual. Another bright action from the U.S. Department of Justice? Hey guys, it is a joke, isn't it?

    _nice!

    1. Re:U.S. Department of Comedy _ by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      The Order states among other things, that _

      "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application and this Order are sealed until otherwise ordered by the Court, and that Twitter shall not disclose the existence of the application or this Order of the Court, or the existence of the investigation, to the listed subscriber or to any other person, unless and until authorized to do so by the Court"

      _ and within a couple of hours you can find the copy all over the Net, as usual. Another bright action from the U.S. Department of Justice? Hey guys, it is a joke, isn't it?

      _nice!

      Have a look at the date of the subpoena.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    2. Re:U.S. Department of Comedy _ by ego+centrik · · Score: 1

      _ with "time of propagation" understood.

    3. Re:U.S. Department of Comedy _ by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      _ with "time of propagation" understood.

      I don't know what that means.

      The subpoena was unsealed several weeks after it was delivered to Twitter, which gave the DOJ ample time to collect the data it wanted. Once it was a public document it was posted on the 'net. You seem to be implying it was leaked; that's not what happened.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    4. Re:U.S. Department of Comedy _ by ego+centrik · · Score: 1

      I see you point of view. Do agree that you're right and I'm wrong.

  28. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    An unknown, over funded, non IPO (private) internet entity that spreads massive amounts of expensive freedoms and democracy - for profit entrepreneurship at its best.
    The potential targets is spot on. Flush people out by helping their generations "Pentagon papers" via the anonymity of the internet.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  29. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by Teancum · · Score: 2

    Once the information is in the public, it can't be made secret again.

    I'd suggest somebody read a little used document I suppose, at least if you claim to be an American: The U.S. Constitution. Most particularly the first article of amendment. What WIkileaks is doing clearly falls within the realm of that document where congress is explicitly prohibited from making a law in the first place to restrict such speech.

  30. Define WikiLeaks Supporters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article sounds like they are after info from key people known to be affiliated with Wikileaks.

    The headline makes it sound like they wanted information on everybody on Twitter who has ever posted anything supportive of Wikileaks.

    There is a rather significant difference between the two.

    1. Re:Define WikiLeaks Supporters... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The article sounds like they are after info from key people known to be affiliated with Wikileaks.

      The headline makes it sound like they wanted information on everybody on Twitter who has ever posted anything supportive of Wikileaks.

      There is a rather significant difference between the two.

      That is because if the headline were accurate, nobody would read the article.

      BTW, I already commented on this article or I would have modded your post up (even though you are an Anonymous Coward).

  31. Rob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rob Gongrijp is on the list. He is a famous Dutch hacker. One of the first to bring internet to the masses in the Netherlands (with XS4ALL). He was, allegedly, involved with Wikileaks in releasing the Iraq movie in where two reporters where killed.

    1. Re:Rob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rob Gongrijp is on the list. He is a famous Dutch hacker. One of the first to bring internet to the masses in the Netherlands (with XS4ALL). He was, allegedly, involved with Wikileaks in releasing the Iraq movie in where two reporters where killed.

      He is called Rop Gonggrijp (Wikipedia). And what I read is that he himself is not wanted (probably), but they just want to know IP-addresses and stuff, just so they can dig further or find more evidence.

  32. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    All that would get you is a hefty fine for deliberately misinterpreting the subpoena to waste the state's time.

  33. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    By posting this on slashdot you are making a record of your dissent. It wouldn't be hard for the feds to find it and find you.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  34. Ooh, a law was broken! by Steeltoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A law was broken? So what? You are probably breaking more than a dozen laws a week, just by living and breathing, taking shortcuts over the lane, missing some info on the tax report, etc. If someone is out to get you, they can easily find something on you, or fabricate evidence against you.

    If you had any spine left in your body AC, you would ask yourself WHY someone put their LIFE on the line to disclose this information, and why someone else do EVERYTHING in their power to stop it..

    1. Re:Ooh, a law was broken! by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Indeed. After reading these cables, I am asking why someone would put their life on the line to disclose the information. At this point, I'm leaning towards childhood trauma or some sort of mental illness.

    2. Re:Ooh, a law was broken! by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      A law was broken? So what? You are probably breaking more than a dozen laws a week, just by living and breathing, taking shortcuts over the lane, missing some info on the tax report, etc. If someone is out to get you, they can easily find something on you, or fabricate evidence against you.

      If you had any spine left in your body AC, you would ask yourself WHY someone put their LIFE on the line to disclose this information, and why someone else do EVERYTHING in their power to stop it..

      LOL @ "Steeltoe" calling someone else a spineless anonymous coward.

      Pvt. Manning is a moron.
      LOL @ "EVERYTHING in their power"

      You really, really do not know what oppression is.

    3. Re:Ooh, a law was broken! by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      What arguments. I'm not sure where to begin. How about never? ;)

      Just because their power is not absolute now, doesn't mean they're not doing everything in their (current) power..

      Think, try to think for yourself, lemming.

    4. Re:Ooh, a law was broken! by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      Because we have only been exposed to what, 0.8% of the cables yet?

      Someone was reading these cables, and decided they should be exposed for the greater good, risking their own life while doing so.

      We just don't know yet why, do we? So why so adamant about something you don't know? Just operating as usual?

    5. Re:Ooh, a law was broken! by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is , that even if the cables themselves contain nothing the governments don't want us to know , the reaction of the government clearly shows they have something to hide.

      That's the power behind the encrypted file . I'm not even sure it actually contains something , but the governments fear it might contain something they want to hide . That is why they fight it so badly.

      So regardless of the content , it shows us that the government does have something it wants to hide from it's people , and exactly what they are capable of in order to keep it hidden.

  35. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    Next we'll see is people put on no-fly lists, just because they're friends with Assange.. And yet, the sheep keep defending their inadequate two-party system.

  36. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    They'll have to imprison all of us. Eventually "they" will, if people never stand up for themselves.

  37. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by hedwards · · Score: 1

    That's not a smart move, unless the court order reasonably suggests that, it's highly likely that the judge would find Twitter in contempt of court for doing that sort of thing. Judges get rather pissy when they think they're being disrespected or disregarded, and parties that pull that sort of thing tend to get deal with gruffly.

  38. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by hedwards · · Score: 1

    That's not true. PFC Manning, assuming he was the leak, would be guilty. However, it's not a death penalty offense and unless you've got evidence that somebody helped him procure the information that he leaked, he'd be the only one that would be guilty. There is no culpability for Wikileaks releasing information that was leaked to them, they are not an investigative organization, they only leak what people voluntarily provide them.

  39. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It did specify that the data not be anonymized.

    It specifically orders Twitter to provide real names, email addresses, physical addresses (both business and personal,) telephone numbers, IP addresses used...

    Sure, there's nothing to prevent Twitter from making it worse and releasing the personal data on thousands of other people, but since they were essentially ordered to give all the information they had on the accounts requested, that plan seems doomed to be rendered moot by the use of Ctrl-F.

  40. DoJ is a risk to growth by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

    The geatest risk to US innovation and continued dominance in Internet business is NOT regulation. It is the DoJ. In the future start ups are going to avoid the US because they can present the increased privacy as a selling point to consumers.

  41. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by O+Blimey · · Score: 1

    So you don't know the Men In Black. Good. They don't exist. Now close your eyes, muffle your ears and soon everything will be OK again. Do it NOW.

  42. I DIDNT RTFA by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I am wondering if they are going after the guys because they are trying to help Assange continue his website , thereby allowing the continuation of the wool being taken off us residents (and the worlds) eyes, as to how bad the us gov. treats others....or is there a legitimate reason, like maybe they are criminals that rape and pillage, ....oh wait, yeah probably not.

    What court is going to give the go ahead on this, oh wait, yeah ...again,....that would be a US court, run on US soil, even though twitter is not a US entity.....hmmm...will be following this one closely. This reminds me of the guy who got so pissed off at someone, that anyone after that he comes across, gets the same treatment no matter if the person did anything or just said hello....the US gov. needs to back off.

  43. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

    They don't care about the lunatic fringe they care about the masses. The lunatic fringe is already unafraid/uncaring about government opinion. Any action against them makes them martyrs to themselves and others like them. No the government wants joe-shmoe so they can put the fear in the other joe's.

  44. Before everybody jumps to conclusions by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

    Before everybody jumps to conclusions, from the actual subpoena, the information being turned over is contact information - names, mailing addresses, methods of payment, if applicable, ip addresses, etc., specifically excluded is the content of the tweets. In short, it appears they are 1) trying to see where the data came from -- if US, then US laws pervail, 2) how to contact individuals and 3) if money exchanged hands, from what countries did that occur.

    These are all things that any investigation would look at. If this were 30 years ago, the subpoena would be to the phone companies instead of Twitter.

    Since it was announced some time ago that the DOJ was investigating the leaks, there isn't any news here. If they had hacked Twitter to get the information, then that would have been newsworthy, but as it stands, it appears that the DOJ is following the laws in the US to obtain the information they are wanting in their investigation.

    1. Re:Before everybody jumps to conclusions by pwinkeler · · Score: 1

      Duh - they already have the content: you can search Twitter too

      --
      PaulW, IT Consultant
  45. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Sure, if you dont mind being held in contempt, thats a brilliant idea-- give the finger to the court system.

  46. No, not true by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    The geatest risk to US innovation and continued dominance in Internet business is NOT regulation. It is the DoJ. In the future start ups are going to avoid the US because they can present the increased privacy as a selling point to consumers.

    This is simply not true. The greatest risk is US policy that borderlines on fascism. The DOJ is just the legal enforcement arm of the US government. In otherwords, they are tasked with carrying out the enforcement of those policies which are set by others.. They, the DOJ, are not the problem themself and focussing on them as the problem allows for the real erosion of rights and privacy to occur unabated.

  47. Play Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is an absolute imperative that the President of the United States of America retain absolute anonymity in ording the murder of US civilian nationals or the nationals of any other country (Reuters staff included).

    Any and all individuals involved in outing the President of the United States of America must be arrested and executed or indefinitely detained for the amusment of the President and Cabinet Officials.

    Hopefully Cpl Manning can survive in solitary confinement for many years, erstwhile Mr. Gates will have the 2nd Infantry trolling some city for another play thing to soothe his and Mr. Obama's sexual urgings.

  48. Move the servers by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    Events such as this encourage business to move their servers to somewhere safe. Just like off-shoring jobs is a reaction to higher costs and lack of government protection of local jobs. If the government keeps doing this then eventually the only thing left in the USA will be law offices, lobbyists, and politicians.

  49. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article should note that it is not just any "wikileaks supporters" and that it is linked specifically to a criminal investigation - though that makes the scope nonetheless excessive.

  50. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

    Everything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. The connections you make, the things you read, everything. The government has too much power and by indulging in these useless social media activities, people are making themselves into potential targets by participating in them. Say you were curious about wikileaks and subscribed to Assange's twitter. Well guess what, now the government knows who you are, you are on yet another list and only because you were curious about what he had to say.

    I'm not condemning social media as much as I am condemning this sort of behavior from government. But while the government IS behaving this way, people should be more careful in response.

    Who would have guessed we would be the next Iran?

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  51. Re:Dear Governments, Here is how to control the We by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Profit, schphofit, we can print as much money as we want; POWER trumps Profit.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  52. Latin America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chile, Costa Rica, Panama and Argentina come to mind for my "escape." I couldn't do Brazil - too many kidnappings and violence there.

  53. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by OldTechie · · Score: 2

    It's not free speech, it's treason. Saying Obama sucks is free speech but publishing secret docs is treason. The penalties include death. Aiding in treason is treason.

  54. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck being careful. More people should be NOT careful and speak out. 'Being Careful' is whats allowing the US Government to get away with this kind of behavior in the first place.

  55. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by Spad · · Score: 1

    Nah, the best option in these situations is always to print out the records and have them couriered to the government agency who requested them.

  56. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

    Um, no. It's not really treason. And it is definitely not treason for all non-Americans involved.

  57. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law. The connections you make, the things you read, everything. The government has too much power and by indulging in these useless social media activities, people are making themselves into potential targets by participating in them. Say you were curious about wikileaks and subscribed to Assange's twitter. Well guess what, now the government knows who you are, you are on yet another list and only because you were curious about what he had to say.

    I'm not condemning social media as much as I am condemning this sort of behavior from government. But while the government IS behaving this way, people should be more careful in response.

    You should be more careful about where/what you post... the Subpoena for Slashdot's user information is coming, they want your full background because you're posting on a Wikileaks thread... oh, crap, now they'll want mine too.

  58. I really don't see the problem with this. by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

    If this is private and confidential information, shouldn't it be already be published on Wikileaks?

  59. Re:Dear Governments, Here is how to control the We by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    wut no profit????

    When you have power, you don't need profit. Profit is for those who want to advance in the game. You don't need to advance in the game when you own the game and make all the rules to the game.

  60. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by dizzydogg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For military personel it is treason, for anyone else it is not. Especially when the group releasing the documents are not American, they have no duty to keep the secrets of foreign nations. Heck, you are not required to keep the secrets of your own goverment either. When the pentagon papers were published by the New York Times, and Nixon had them taken to court, the supreme court found 6-3 in favor of the New York Times publishing the documents.

    "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
    —Justice Black

        So in the closest case we have to Wikileaks, the supreme court ruled it was the newspapers RESPONSIBILITY to report the lies of our government to us. If you want to hide your head in the sand, obey big brother at all times, and never question your government, move to to China, they appreciate your kind there. America was founded on the idea of an open democracy by the people for the people, not some secretive government that disappears people who disagree with it for "treason". But the reason the governments are scared of Wikileaks is because a lot of people in government do things that if their people found out, would have them thrown out in seconds. Every time wikileaks releases more documents, the government starts banging the treason drum, saying it puts our troops at risk. As of yet not one single Wikileak can be blamed for causing the death of an American soldier. They said the same thing about the Afghan war document leak in august. The secretary of defense himself said "the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure." Those were military communications, and these are diplomatic cables, which are far less likely to endanger troops, and far more likely to embarrass two faced diplomats who are being caught saying one thing to the public and another in private.

        The truth of the matter is 911 was an incredibly successful attack on the freedoms of Americans. No group had ever been as successful at changing American views and ideals since the founding fathers. Since then large portion of Americans can be herded wherever the government wants you by using words like "National Security" and "terrorism", people willingly give up freedoms that our grandfathers fought for and often paid for with their lives. That one attack did more to bring us closer to a 1984 style big brother controlled America, where any dissent is crushed and called treason, than any effort by any group. People willingly give up their freedoms and rights in exchange for protection from the terrorist bogeymen. Hell they don't even need to get actual protection, most people are perfectly happy with the bullshit security theatre their goverment puts in place (at great public cost) that will do nothing to stop another attack. America may once have been the land of the free and the home of the brave, but it is quickly turning into the land of the totalitarian democracy, the home of cowards who hide behind their governments skirts.

  61. Did anyone actually check the date? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is dated December 14. The three days expired almost a month ago.

  62. This is why we'll have iPads! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With iPads, we can push you new content over the air, so your facist/nazi/evil/whatever state never even existed!

  63. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not too frightened, subscribe to Jacob Appelbaum's Twitter account (twitter.com/ioerror). He's the only American working on behalf of wikileaks and he's a prominent Tor spokesman to boot. Here's hoping he makes it home from Iceland safely.

  64. have you ever been a member of the communist party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is to be expected from the USA, in fact its almost tradition by now

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

  65. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by G_REEPER · · Score: 1

    Last time i looked treason by a member of the military does make it punishable by death.

  66. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by cpghost · · Score: 1

    By posting this on slashdot you are making a record of your dissent. It wouldn't be hard for the feds to find it and find you.

    I know you're being funny, cynical, or sarcastic. But the simple fact that such a sentence with the words "the feds" instead of "the KGB" exists today and is even perceived as remotely plausible, shows how deep we stooped from our previous moral high ground of the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave."

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  67. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by rdnetto · · Score: 1

    Hide in plain sight. The guy with virtually no online presence is much more suspicious than the guy with an average looking Facebook.

    --
    Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  68. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by dangitman · · Score: 2

    And how is exposing corruption in the government treason? To me it looks a lot more like patriotism.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  69. it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by t2t10 · · Score: 1

    So, it's ok for authorities to lie, cheat, bribe, kill, torture, etc, and the very act of exposing them is a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment?

    They subpoenaed some information; that's not "death or life imprisonment".

    You're so fucked.. Just watch your country go down in flames

    It's much worse in Europe and elsewhere, and Europeans are too stupid to even realize it. Inform yourself about the laws!

    1. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      So when China obtains information on social behaviour, it's bad, but when USA does it, it's "for the greater good"? There is no evidence yet that Wikileaks have broken any laws, yet people in their network is being treated as criminals.

      I agree. EU is not much better. They're learning from the best it seems ;)

      I am happy to be corrected, on any laws. But some other poster mentioned, just because it's in the law, then it's acceptable. That is lemming-behaviour. People need to start to think for themselves. What is acceptable by this behaviour from government?

    2. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence yet that Wikileaks have broken any laws,

      There is enough evidence for a grand jury and a judge to approve proceeding. You do know what a grand jury is?

      yet people in their network is being treated as criminals.

      They are not being "treated as criminals"; a grand jury and a judge have looked at the facts and decided to give a limited amount of information to a prosecutor for building his case against Assange.

      I agree. EU is not much better.

      In fact, the EU is so much worse that it is in a category by itself: many of the safeguards that exist in the US (grand jury, judicial review, notification, ability to object, few data retention requirements) do not exist at all in Europe. In Europe, police get this data secretly and routinely without anybody ever finding out about it.

      They're learning from the best it seems ;)

      The EU has always had far fewer safeguards against abuse of police powers.

      But some other poster mentioned, just because it's in the law, then it's acceptable.

      You still haven't explained what you consider "unacceptable" about this. This is standard investigative procedure, with the only difference being that in the US, it's actually public and has tons more safeguards. Do you seriously think European police and prosecutors haven't already looked at all the records they can get on Assange?

    3. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      I agree. EU is not much better. They're learning from the best it seems ;)

      You know, I really wonder what's going on in the heads of people like you. Do you know anything about European history in the 20th century? Dictatorships, civil wars, genocides, totalitarian regimes, police states, religious discrimination, colonialism? And, I'm not even talking of the Nazis--they were in a category all of their own.

    4. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      My only hope is the the Australian Government has the balls and brains to stop sucking up to the falling empire. How is it in our interests to be good friends with a country with no real economic power who has pissed off every other country in our region?

      Assange is an Australian. Wikileaks is a publishing organisation. Is this grand jury also investigating any of the major news outlets publishing information from these leaks?

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    5. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      My only hope is the the Australian Government has the balls and brains to stop sucking up to the falling empire. How is it in our interests to be good friends with a country with no real economic power who has pissed off every other country in our region?

      You're totally out of touch with reality. The US has the biggest economy in the world by far. And this "failing empire" is what keeps Australia, Japan, and Europe relatively free, because without the US military and the US nuclear deterrent, China, Russia, and the Middle Eastern nations would be asserting themselves.

      Is this grand jury also investigating any of the major news outlets publishing information from these leaks?

      I doubt it. Why should they? What are you getting at? What difference does it make?

    6. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit over this line. China traditionally has an inward looking defence strategy and does not invade unless it sees the territory it is invading as part of China (Taiwan) or as a direct threat to it's own stability (Tibet). Apart from that, they are more interested in trade. The US on the other hand has a long history of criminal activity all over the world for the sake of fleecing American taxpayers for the profit of a few large companies. Which is more dangerous?

      The United States economy is only the biggest economy thanks to smoke and mirrors. What will happen when China's middle class is large enough that China doesn't need US markets? How long will the smoke and mirrors last?

      And as for Americans keeping the world free... pfffft! Slavery to large corporations is not freedom, no matter how the commercial media tries to tell me that instant gratification through consumption is.

      Respect for the United States worldwide has plummeted and continues to plummet, in part because of this "we keep you free" line that we see through for the bullshit it is. And yes, the US has nukes and over the next twenty or so years that thought scares me much more than the thought of China or Russia having them. The US has such an enormous population of whack jobs who believe propaganda, be it religious or political, in ignorance of objectivity or reason that I fear a bankrupt US would be the most likely to use them out of spite.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    7. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      China traditionally has an inward looking defence strategy and does not invade unless it sees the territory it is invading as part of China (Taiwan) or as a direct threat to it's own stability (Tibet)

      Yes, after subjugating much of Asia, they stopped; they couldn't have run any bigger empire than that. They got their asses kicked by the British in the 19th century and have been in turmoil ever since.

      The US on the other hand has a long history of criminal activity all over the world for the sake of fleecing American taxpayers for the profit of a few large companies. Which is more dangerous?

      For most of the 20th century, US military action was focused on keeping Europe free, keeping the USSR from taking over the world, and clearning up some of the messes that European colonialism caused. Sorry, I don't see anything "criminal about that.

      The United States economy is only the biggest economy thanks to smoke and mirrors.

      And that statement is based on... what? The US has much lower debt (per capita, %GDP), higher per capita GDP, and faster growth than Europe. And without US importing like it does, European economies would collapse and Chinese growth would stagnate.

      The US has such an enormous population of whack jobs who believe propaganda, be it religious or political, in ignorance of objectivity or reason that I fear a bankrupt US would be the most likely to use them out of spite.

      I've spent many years in Europe. Let me tell you: Europeans are much more ignorant of history, economics, and politics than Americans. France, Germany, and the UK are xenophobic and their political systems are tearing themselves up between communists, socialists, theocrats, and ultra right-wingers. Worry about Europe, not the US.

    8. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2

      For most of the 20th century, US military action was focused on keeping Europe free, keeping the USSR from taking over the world, and clearning up some of the messes that European colonialism caused. Sorry, I don't see anything "criminal about that.

      After the two world wars, in both cases the US entered from a position of originally not wanting to get involved in foreign conflicts, the US went to Vietnam, the debarkle that was Iran/Iraq, Central America, Libya, Iraq again twice. Oh and Isreal.

      In the case of the second Iraq war, it was so obviously a case that, had it occurred on a scale of individual citizens, would be called armed robbery. We know the claims of WMDs were invented, we know the people in the administration who hatched the plan had interests in arms companies who profited from US taxpayers and oil companies who profited from the stolen oil fields. I'm not saying Saddam Hussien was a good man, I just think the evil fuckwit puppeteers of Bush are worse. Certainly responsible for far more innocent deaths in the name of a buck. This is why they don't like Wikileaks. It continues to erode bullshit cover stories for crimes against humanity.

      And that statement is based on... what? The US has much lower debt (per capita, %GDP), higher per capita GDP, and faster growth than Europe. And without US importing like it does, European economies would collapse and Chinese growth would stagnate.

      At the moment, yes Chinese growth would stagnate, but not for much longer. The middle class is growing. If they were to insist on balancing trade, the US would be bankrupt. Does your assessment of debt include balance of trade figures?

      I too have spent some time in Europe and worked extensively with Americans and Europeans and I find the opposite regarding ignorance and bigotry, but then for someone who sucks up the propaganda it might be hard to objectively determine what is ignorance...

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    9. Re:it is FAR WORSE elsewhere by t2t10 · · Score: 0

      After the two world wars, in both cases the US entered from a position of originally not wanting to get involved in foreign conflicts, the US went to Vietnam, the debarkle that was Iran/Iraq, Central America, Libya, Iraq again twice. Oh and Isreal.

      Vietnam was the aftermath of French colonialism, Iran, Iraq, and Israel were messes left by the British, and Libya by Italy. The US had to try to deal with these messes because Europe was in shambles and incapable of doing so itself after WWII.

      I'm not saying Saddam Hussien was a good man, I just think the evil fuckwit puppeteers of Bush are worse. Certainly responsible for far more innocent deaths in the name of a buck.

      Bush was a liar and a sleazeball. But Saddam killed half a million people in the decade before the US came; in the same period since then, far fewer people have died, and most of them have been internal Iraqi violence.

      At the moment, yes Chinese growth would stagnate, but not for much longer. The middle class is growing. If they were to insist on balancing trade, the US would be bankrupt. Does your assessment of debt include balance of trade figures?

      Are you kidding? The US would love to balance trade; it's the Chinese and Europeans who are insisting on the current system.

      Balancing trade would mean reducing European exports to the US and increasing US exports to Europe. What do you think that would do to European and US jobs, respectively? Balancing US trade would also mean devaluing the US dollar, I'd guess to about $2-3/Euro (the two are inextricably linked). Since US foreign debt is largely in US dollars, that would wipe out half of US foreign debt. It would also wipe out a large part of Europe's foreign account holdings--retirement funds and all. From the narrow, short-term interests of the US, balancing its trade and devaluing the dollar are very attractive: get rid of unemployment and wipe out a large part of the debt.

      What isn't attractive is that other economies would likely collapse and may even become politically unstable as people see their savings and retirement benefits wiped out.

      The US trade deficit isn't an expression of US profligacy; rather, it is what the US does in order to keep the world economy chugging along.

      It's been 70 years since WWII and Europe needs to start fending for itself again, militarily and economically, rather than leaving the dirty work to the US, handing themselves large government benefits, and patting themselves on the back for how wonderful they are. The current system isn't sustainable, and Americans are really getting tired of the negative consequences it has for the US.

      but then for someone who sucks up the propaganda it might be hard to objectively determine what is ignorance...

      Yeah, you obviously have been blindly sucking up propaganda instead of thinking things through for yourself. Use your head, man.

  70. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Moxie Marlinspike got pulled out of an airport security line, was questioned and had his computers searched because he's a friend of a friend of someone working for Wikileaks.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  71. before the inevitable US bashing starts... by t2t10 · · Score: 1

    What happened was that a prosecutor asked for some fairly basic personal data. The US legal system requires review through a judge who decided that the release of this data was justified, but mandated disclosure. Furthermore, if Twitter and the affected individuals have an opportunity to challenge the decision. That's the legal system working the way it should.

    Europe has mandatory data retention of this kind of information as part of an EU directive, and many nations have gone beyond even the already serious requirements that the directive imposes. Police in many European nations can get at this data without any kind of judicial review and you never even have a chance of finding out that you have been investigated. Show me a European nation where your data would be better protected from police and prosecutors than in the US.

    And anybody who thinks that what Assange did wouldn't lead to prosecution in Europe is even more naive. Merely making fun of the state can land you in jail in European nations, as can insulting politicians and churches. Release of some of the cables is likely actionable in Europe simply because it portrays people in a bad light. It's a purely political decision that European nations haven't started prosecuting Assange for these releases directly; they certainly have the laws and information to do it.

    Wake up, folks. In the US, at least people complain about this stuff. Europeans just submit to their governments unquestioningly.

  72. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So wait, your solution to a subpoena demanding a couple of account info's is to send them that, plus account info's of innocent bystanders who have no relation to the subpoena? Isn't that rather like getting mugged, and not just handing over your wallet but also bending over your girlfriend and saying "Please rape her not me"'. Or maybe like saying, "Please rape me first".

  73. Answer This: by zero0ne · · Score: 1

    Why do they need to get the info from Twitter? Couldn't they just be tracking IP access at key edge routers and back trace that to the users ISP account?

    If someone is posting on twitter that they like wikileaks, they are also most likely a user who is actively visiting the site... meaning there is definitely a IP trail from their ISP to one of the wikileaks mirrors.

    IF they need to get twitter account user info, I would assume that means there is already a database of everyone accessing the site to begin with... Yay government!

  74. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

    I know. It sucks. America is the land of the free (if you are rich and/or in government), home of the sheep.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  75. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by petsounds · · Score: 1

    It's a wake-up call that most of the social media services we use are based in the United States, and thus subject to such subpoenas. I think the US government's eagerness to spy on internet communications puts US-based social media companies at a severe disadvantage in the global marketplace. But some of this blame must fall on the companies themselves. If Twitter is so concerned with free speech and democratic thought, they should be encrypting all DMs such that only the sender and recipient have the keys to unecrypt the private conversations.

    It's ironic that the State Department encouraged Twitter to keep their service running 24/7 during the "Green Revolution" in Iran, which encouraged political and anti-regime dissent in that country through tweets, but when it comes to political dissent against the US government, suddenly these same government vanguards need to rifle through users' digital belongings in the middle of the night.

    One can only hope that this will start to bring about a new generation of decentralized, non-commercial social media services such as Diaspora.

  76. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

    The truth of the matter is 911 was an incredibly successful attack on the freedoms of Americans.
    Sadly, it appears very true. In one brutal attack Al-Qaeda has transformed the most powerful nation on earth into a nation of sheep that are being fleeced by the Haliburtons of the world.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison... great men with high ideals. I hope their hard work is not wasted.

    --
    BM3
  77. And their followers too? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    As you have to be a *insert this months bad term here* if you have even thought of reading what they had to say.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  78. What books? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Amazon has already removed them from our kindles..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  79. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

    NO! While the government is behaving this way, people should be rioting in the streets!

    Where are all the armed bears you are so proud of?

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  80. Lol yeah by Steeltoe · · Score: 2

    Sometimes, I think I must have picked a very bad nick. I'm definately not inside the herd-think that is in here at least (phew for that ;)

    I certainly will not justify government actions that is provably among those listed, and I think being scanned on social medium owned by corporations, by the government, just reeks of McCarthyism all over again. Especially so, when Wikileaks itself has broken NO LAWS. This is abuse, and will be abused, by people in high positions that want to cover their asses. If this is a new "war on wikileaks", it shows how badly these people need to be replaced before they do even more harm. They don't understand democracy and the internet, and they certainly will do everything in their power to seize more power, using every avenue to fool the public about it.

    I'm not quick to believe conspiracies (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI&feature=related for my take on most conspiracy theories), however any wise person is now taking note that the well USA is tumbling down nowadays looks very much like corporate fascism. Maybe we need to experience it, to avoid the same damages in the future that is soon to unfold? Sadly, people seem so immature these days, it seems the lesson needs to be learned the hard way.

    But I'll keep on posting. Eventually, usually, my points become validated in future events, be it new technical innovations or exposure of lies and deceit.

    I vividly remember seeing GWB live on TV talking about how "a new intelligence report" showed EVIDENCE of WMDs in Iraq. For some reason, my gut sometimes reacts when someone is lying, and it did. I told all my friends that this was a lie. We started SMS campaigns how this was a war on false premises.. Basically, most my friends and relatives told me this can't be true. They "must" know something Blix and UN workers don't. But of course, it was all a big fat lie to justify going to war, something GWB had wished for a long time, revenge for his dad or just to take down "one of their own guys gone bad" (bad being the "other side", by definition of course). The "intelligence report" that justified the whole Iraq war was never found, and that should tell you something. How do these guys get away with it?

    Clinton had to leave office for lying about the "definition of sex" (wether oral sex is "sex" or not!), while GWB has yet to be convicted of his crimes against humanity. Oh brother! What a circus!

    People are sheep, even on /.. Just because a leader says to kill, people do it without any thought of who they are, what they're doing and what the consequences are (which is wisdom).

    People blindly believe in religion, one-sided science and governments because of intelligence and flawed logic. It has no relationship with how wise they are, unfortunately.

    Sometimes you have to listen with your heart, not dogma, and that is the only way to truly know something intuitively.

  81. They're hardly controlling the flow of our info by Motard · · Score: 1

    The list of people/accounts that they requested data on is pretty limited - and they're not even requesting that the accounts be shut down.

    These aren't just Wikileak supporters (I imagine Twitter has thousands). These are people who are closely related, and some cases (formerly) a part of Wikileaks.

    Probably, the DoJ is building a case against Assange (and probably others) and needs to be able to verify the identities of individuals whose Twitter accounts tweeted statements the DoJ wants to use in evidence.

    1. Re:They're hardly controlling the flow of our info by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      So Far.

      +1 Witch Hunt Phenomenon.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  82. Gawd! Will the witchhunt ever end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US government is making itself out to be a pariah. Guantanamo Bay and the show trials surrounding it (is regular American justice so broken that they can't be tried using regular laws??), left people in other countries shaking their heads and saying 'gee, I'm sure glad I don't live under that sort of totalitarian democracy', but their bizarre witch hunt surrounding anyone associated with WikiLeaks is somewhere between an affront to stupidity, and yet another show trial (even if you have to make stuff up). Now they are going after corporate sponsors of WikiLeaks on Twitter and elsewhere. This is barbaric. Apparently genuine public disclosure is not allowed in the US. When going after 3rd world countries, 'Democracy' was the official word. Its just that the message gets confused with the 'Do as I say, not as I do' actions. I always follow the rule: "actions speak louder than words, and they always tell the truth." When the US says 'oh public debate is OK, open transparent government is OK', thats the talk part. When they go after WikiLeaks (founder, supporters, everyone else), thats when they flunk at the action part. Because the first half doesn't match the second half, you have to conclude (left with no other conclusion) that they are clearly not telling anyone the truth.

    Yours Sincerely,
                            Anonymous Coward

  83. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by jack2000 · · Score: 1

    How are you going to hold in contempt a whole company?

  84. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by trawg · · Score: 1

    Everything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law.

    I would say, "does anyone need more reason to quit doing anything that is hosted on a service in the US where their personal information can seemingly be requested or taken at any time by the US government"?

    I think this is less of a case about it being 'social media' and more of a case about being careful in what jurisdiction you're hosting potentially sensitive stuff. If Twitter was a service hosted in a country with a little more of a grasp on reality you'd probably be less concerned about it - same if you were just hosting a blog, or a website that mirrored the wikileaks cables, or whatever. ... as long as your target country wasn't on that growing list of ones that would just do what the US government told them to do anyway, of course

  85. Strongly disagreed by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    It is *only* through these new forms of communication and mass organizing that modern governments can be opposed. Being more careful only serves to empower them. If twitter/etc become a problem we can find a replacement but as a whole, we should *embrace* rather than hide from the new tools at our disposal for collectively organizing.

    People without a significant online record, including naked pictures of themselves online, should simply not be allowed near government anymore.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  86. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow telling them more than you need seems counterproductive

  87. yes, if twitter was located in the country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?

    yes, if twitter was located in the middle eastern country and your wife had provided her personal information to them.

  88. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Look again, then, and this time pay closer attention to the definition of "treason."

  89. Unsealed by request by formfeed · · Score: 1

    "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application and this Order are sealed until otherwise ordered by the Court, and that Twitter shall not disclose the existence of the application or this Order of the Court, or the existence of the investigation, to the listed subscriber or to any other person, unless and until authorized to do so by the Court" _ and within a couple of hours you can find the copy all over the Net, as usual. Another bright action from the U.S. Department of Justice? Hey guys, it is a joke, isn't it?

    From the article on Salon:

    It was issued on December 14 and ordered sealed -- i.e., kept secret from the targets of the Order. It gave Twitter three days to respond and barred the company from notifying anyone, including the users, of the existence of the Order. On January 5, the same judge directed that the Order be unsealed at Twitter's request in order to inform the users and give them 10 days to object; had Twitter not so requested, it would have been compelled to turn over this information without the knowledge of its users.

    Kudos to Twitter.

  90. Subpoena invites you to use email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I notice that the subpoena asks for the information in electronic form (CD, electronic media or email).

    Does the agency asking for this information understand the privacy and security implications of transmitting information over email? I get the feeling that there's some sort of disconnect.

    I'd be interested in asking the people in the DOJ whose email address is listed in the subpoena (I won't repeat it here) about how savvy they are about privacy and security of information transmitted over email.

    -- recherche

  91. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And submit the data on paper. ;)

  92. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by G_REEPER · · Score: 1

    ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason " I think this will do : United States Code at 18 U.S.C. 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695. Since according to the US, people lost their lives due to information leaked that gave al-Qaeda information about informants i suspect this will fit the bill. The clause that will be used is," giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere", Should i even remind you that he took a oath to defend the US??? I think if you read the link it is even more surprising what other countries consider treason. I know taking a oath and keeping your word or being expected to keep that oath is so 1930- 1950 ish , but the military still expects it. .

  93. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    The clause that will be used is," giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere",

    It would have to be stretched beyond the limit of sanity to make THAT case.

    Admittedly, "sanity" isn't anywhere to be found on the USG's character sheet these days.

  94. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by Teancum · · Score: 1

    And prove to me that the "Men in Black" actually exist. Really. And they have agents that look like Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith too?

  95. Perhaps people have been forgetting by DragonDevil · · Score: 1

    Back in the 50's-60's the cia was using LSD on unsuspecting hospital patients for decades in another country. Apparently all this was without the permission or knowledge of the host country. Perhaps this occured in far more countries than we will ever know, and it may be why many leaders now are not so enthusistic about an alliance, friendship, partnership or aid from the united snakes of america. As far as that goes I do not believe any restitution, apology, nor remedy was ever provided by the usa, and have continued to observed all the activities and subterfuge of an unbridled secret society plunging itself into even more surreptitious, devious and lecherous activities.

    Now maybe a good time to start distancing ourselves from the ever lying and cheating, self proclaimed protector of "rights" and "freedoms" that are the over-rich, over-privileged, ever-mouthy, uncaring and incompassionate, arrogant and self-righteous kings and queens in those united snakes. I am not so taken by the myriads of movie and entertainment crap put out by a vain, self-congratulating glutton that could actually be helping the world instead, and help even its own people thousands of times better, to real altruistic ends. They hold the "public good" up as the reason for everything, convicing you that when you vote you actually have a voice and participation in government (you do not and is why ur system is so fkdup), and contribute to their brand of freedom (you do not), but the administration does nothing to really help the plight of the common person.

    You can not tell me, or even START to pretend, that it is entirely inconceivable that the united sucks of america would not bomb their own people for some secret gambit strategy to create a carte blanche bonanza to squelch individual rights and freedoms. Fk! they have bombed friendlies and allies often enough in battle - despite all their so called smart technology, advanced communications devices, IT, and the fact that they are ever presently practicing wars they have instigated throughout decades. They have done it before, to their own people, calling it tests of vectors and distribution patterns of virals. This hatred for the French population for being independant enough, free enough, to suggest so in a book 6 months after the 911, is ridiculous. Oh yes!! Everyone is just so jealous of the states. lmfao!. People question the lunar landings, why is it so hard to believe that they have not either orchestrated the ruse from the start, or at the least actively contribute and support in many unkown ways to the holy wars?

    As mentioned previously, in the 1770's the u.k. had an annual budget of 80,000 pounds just for the Secret Service, I do not think that fact was ever wasted on the 4 fathers. I remember the boasting in the 1960's of the technolgy to filter and monitor all communications taking place in the world, of spy satellites that could discern objects on the ground anywhere in the world smaller than 1 meter. In the 1960's!!!!!! And yet here we are today half a century later, 50 years later, rifling through their so called secure communications channels merely to demonstrate to the rest of the world that they are a secret and evil power that is out of control. What happened to all these capabilities, sharpened by years of experience and technological innovation, in being able to identify threats? Perhaps if they were not picking fights with disadvantaged countries advancing merely finacial interests . . .
    I would be oh! so greatly worried that the united snakes of america: 1) can not be bothered, 2) do not have the know how or abilities, 3) nor the wherewithall, to be able and protect the intellectual property and communications of its own people, most especially at an obvious point of vulnerability. Perhaps if they paid great minds to do great work instead of highering reach-around, gladhand suck ups, or allowing millions of corrupt, fktard execs that decide on any solution they want (are paid/graft/payola to invest in) instead of what is best, they wou

  96. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

    No, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do. Anybody trying a stunt like that would be slapped with sanctions under Rule 11 in short order. And ordered to go back and do it right.

    --

    "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
    --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

  97. we need non-usa alternatives by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    in everything.

    twitter is trivial to clone, its just a web based irc with a massive database backend.

    any one wanna make a safe wikichat.ICELAND alternative

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:we need non-usa alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that. There is something very wrong if a third party can view my private communications ever. Avoiding that is not easy with current popular forms of communication over the internet. Moving away from the US is a temporary fix. A technical solution using encryption is the right long-term fix. At least the government should have to get my encryption keys to read my Twitter (or whatever) posts.

  98. or auto resolve url + title by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

    Wow, would it not be easy to write some perl code to detect this and fetch the first 2kb of the url, to grab the tags, and translate the url in full too ?

    About 12 minutes work there. Add that to the feature request list.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  99. Intimidation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intimidation of those you politically disagree with is the hallmark of a totalitarian dictatorship.
    I am just happy that I don't live in the United States.
    Poor Americans, having to live with what effectively amounts to single party government; the only two parties that can be elected are quite obviously controlled by powerful corporate interest groups.

  100. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol.. There are exceptions to the constitution as not everything fits into a clean little world. One of these exceptions dealing with the first amendment is where it's illegal to profit from a crime. It also touches on the 4th or 5th too. Another exception is inciting a riot. If your speech causes someone else to break a law, you can be considered a conspirator in that violation and convicted because of it.

    These are laws that limit speech that the courts have held to be valid and completely in line with the constitution. Furthermore, the courts have long held that if the situation effect national sovereignty, that can override the constitution to some degree. Look into border searches for instance where one of the very first laws passed by the country allowing warrant-less searches at the borders was ruled constitutional.

    You simply cannot yell "free speech" or "the constitution" and use that to void laws on the books either. Currently, in order to make one of those laws officially unconstitutional, you have to show how the law has harmed you in order to get standing then proceed through the courts to get it properly declared as such. That means yes, you need to be charged for the crime or be prevented from doing something you were already doing and sue for the right to continue doing it.

  101. Re:Why is this a surprise? A law was broken.. by Teancum · · Score: 1

    Laws that restrict speech based upon time, manner, or place restrictions have proven to be "constitutional", but you had better explain how that applies to Wikileaks. Laws that define the speech itself are almost universally declared unconstitutional.

    But then again, most judges forget there is also this silly clause "congress shall pass no law". It means exactly that and nothing more or less. I can't help it if judges can't read something like the constitution in the first place, and it is a slippery slope if you decide to pass any law that restricts free speech in any way.

    Using the excuse of "national security" to prevent individuals from spreading information based upon a contract has merit, where that individual is breaking an agreement if they divulge the information. That exists with trade secrets as much as it applies to classified information. The difference is when an uninvolved third party has the information and what the rational basis for preventing them from further dissemination of the information may lie. If you restrict that in any way, you have essentially killed off anything resembling journalism... which is precisely the point of the 1st amendment.

    You can't put stuff into Pandora's box once it is out, no matter how hard your try. Any legal restrictions to do so are futile and can only become more repressive to the point that free speech in any form is a meaningless exercise.

    I just can't stand people being sheep in accepting what the courts rule, as if the courts are the ultimate arbitrator of what is constitutional and washing their hands of the matter as if nine men alone run the government or ought to run the government. As citizens we can and indeed we must be holding our government officials to a higher law, and complaining about abuses to the foundational principles when they happen. What is going on with Wikileaks is an abuse of these foundational principles even if the courts are whitewashing the whole thing as if it was legal.

  102. Re:Rights by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, all rights are alienable.
    Just study the meaning of "Supoena the ____ (online) accounts of Supporters."

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  103. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it comes to source IP address make it simple - just say that it 127.0.0.1 for all users =)

  104. Re:Does anyone need more reason to quit social med by pwinkeler · · Score: 1

    Ouch! Indeed! That is how the chilling effect begins: people start whispering to each other instead of talking out loud at the water cooler; unspoken glances are used to arrange gatherings of no more than three in quiet attics and basements. I am thinking that perhaps a better response would be for EVERYONE to start following Julian Assange on Twitter no? Then Twitter could simply say: here is the list; all 190+ million users and their access records; have fun!

    --
    PaulW, IT Consultant
  105. Re:I'd hand it to the Justice Department immediate by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

    Perhaps only provide a hard copy as well. I know folks below have said this would get you a fine. But this method of data swamping in useless formats is often used to delay or thwart these types of requests.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  106. Is it sensitive information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it sensitive information? If it's merely embarrassing, then the sensitivity isn't the information, it's the people in the office. In which case, there is no crime, and the only crime there should be is the one of marking the documents illegally as sensitive.

    But whilst people in power get no come-back for mislabeling documents and benefits to hiding their incompetence or crimes, they will continue to do so.

    Apparently with your blessing.