They weren't preventing anyone from talking, they were however doing what they could to disrupt business.
You know, under normal circumstances I'd be very against what those acting under the "Anonymous" label have done, just as many on Slashdot are right now. But these are not normal circumstances. We have a government - correction, we have an establishment, because this is an unholy alliance of government, big business, and big media, all of whom are covering up and even assisting with each other's crimes, that's gone rogue. And not just mildly rogue, it's an establishment that's fraudulently launched wars, kidnapped, tortured, raped, and destroyed. There are literally tens of millions of direct victims of this government, and hundreds of thousands of people victimized to the point of being tortured, raped, kidnapped, or killed.
Two years ago this country reacted to what little was getting out by electing someone who had claimed to be against this (and made it a big part of what he supposedly stood for) since he first hit the national spotlight in 2004. And his actions on taking office? To continue virtually every aspect of what made the previous administration so evil, in some cases going further.
Meanwhile, when there's even a hint that some of the truth will come out, the establishment has lead Denial of Service attacks of their own, with the major credit card companies abusing their monopoly to make it harder for such acts to be funded, and Amazon.com going as far not merely to disconnect Wikileaks, but to spread smears against them, smears they're continuing to spread today.
So I'm ambivalent about the hacker attacks. Frankly, I think most of the "victims" deserve it - in fact, they deserve much worse. In a decent world, we'd see:
Amazon.com facing lawsuits for breach of contract, and facing serious libel lawsuits for the disgusting smears they're peddling and continuing to peddle
Visa and Mastercard facing monopolist charges, with the real possibility of facing either nationalization or a major break-up
Various directors, found to have knowingly participated in conspiring to these denial of service attacks against Wikileaks, finding themselves personally liable, fined, and barred
Given what they're trying to cover up, I wouldn't even feel criminal charges against these thugs occur. If I tried to cover up crimes even a fraction as bad as those they're trying to cover up, I'd be facing jail time.
Be very clear about this: these organizations are doing what they're doing for no other purpose than to assist a rogue establishment in preventing the people from knowing the about the crimes it has committed. They're helping in a campaign to prevent people from knowing that the government, and the media, lied about the wars they started. They're helping in a campaign to prevent people from knowing that, for example, private contractors can rape and kill with impunity, that the government will continue to give them money after they've done so, and that the media will, just by being asked, not report upon it, or if it does, bury it where it will not be seen.
This is what is being hidden. This is what people like Jeff Bezos are more than willing to be a part of.
And I'm supposed to be upset about a bunch of frustrated "hackers" trying to bring down their web servers? Why? They're not engaging in violence, they're not preventing anyone from speaking, and the "right" options - the ones everyone are supposed to use before breaking the law - have been denied in the worst way possible. Democracy was tried. The law isn't even available.
I'm not going to encourage anyone to assist with the DDoS attacks, and not going to engage in them myself. But I simply cannot condemn them. And frankly, if Jeff Bezos or the directors of the major credit cards were in front of me right now, I'd spit on them.
The statement I quoted. Which is still on their website several days later.
If it had been withdrawn at the time, you might have a case for claiming they believed someone else's lie, but it's still up there, long after everyone at Amazon have been made aware that the statement is factually false.
It means third party, Internet connected, managed services.
For example, a company that offers network connected scalable processing and bandwidth services is offering "cloud" services.
Like Amazon.com, for example. Amazon.com offers this as one of their services. They used to sell this service to some-one called "Wikileaks".
Interesting fact: Amazon stopped selling those services to Wikileaks, and lied about why. Amazon claimed they were suspending the hosting because Wikileaks had published 250,000 embassy cables without vetting them first. But this was untrue. Questions have been asked as to why Amazon.com did this, and Amazon.com claimed this false smear in order to deflect the allegation that they had done so under government pressure, something they denied in the same press release.
Now the Feds are announcing a massive move over to cloud computing, a move that will result in hundreds of millions of dollars to those companies who get the contracts.
I wonder why Amazon.com dropped Wikileaks as a customer. And why they felt the need to lie about why. And why they did this just before hundreds of millions of dollars became available for services like the ones they offer, from an organization that really doesn't like Wikileaks.
Just an FYI: That's a little like saying "They can release a Python version of C" or "They can release a Windows version of Unix."
Dalvik implements an entirely different, incompatible, virtual machine system to a JVM. Yes, you can compile programs written in the Java programming language to Dalvik codes (and like a JVM, the Java programming language is the primary development language for Dalvik systems), but the same is true of.NET (the name of the Microsoft's implementation of the Java programming language for.NET is J#)
Credibility means fairly little to the organization organizing the leaks - what matters are the outlets.
I think Wikileaks got it exactly right this time, using some of the most respected newspapers in the world to filter and disseminate the cables, rather than attempting to dump them directly. Sure, they got stick from the usual suspects, but the reality is that nobody is questioning the credibility of the leaks themselves: if The Guardian posts a cable reporting that, to use a real example, defense contractor Dyncorp organizes child rape parties for Afghan warlords in order to close the sale, and the US government's complicity in covering it up, we pretty much accept it, in a way less likely to happen if it's some random voice on the Internet posting what they claim is a cable.
OpenLeaks is made up of people who know this. I don't think they'll have an issue.
No, I didn't, and unless you believe that transparency is not Wikileak's mission, I can't see how you can possibly think what I posted is an answer to the assertion that they're not only publishing selected cables that match Wikileak's mission.
Posting only what a select group of respected, accountable, journalists from respected, accountable, newspapers, whom Wikileaks believes to be trustworthy and acting in good faith, believe is newsworthy would strike me as being exactly consistent with the transparency mission.
Responsible thing would've been to actually go through and read the damn documents and leak only the ones that are actually relevant to wikileaks' purported mission.
You're right. IN fact, they should have brought in outside experts, say, respected journalists who have a large body of knowledge about what is evidence of actual government malfeasance, had them look over the 250,000 documents, and then only published, say, the 960 documents or so that those journalists identify as being important.
Whoever is doing it, such attacks are just plain wrong. Attacking infrastructure may be harmful and amounts to terrorism. That would apply even more so if transaction servers were hit.
Actually, I believe terrorism is defined as "Engaging in an act Ol' Squiggie here finds objectionable", which includes your posting. So if you could turn yourself in a full body cavity search at your friendly TSA camp, I'd be very grateful.
Oh, please. They embarrass the US government and the only charge they can come up with is rape charges in Sweden. Where's the illegal activities? If it's so illegal, where's the charges?
Well, according to Joe Lieberman and Fox News, Australian Julian Assange is guilty of the very serious US crime of Treason...
Mastercard are not the bitches for the US, in some ways it's the opposite. Mastercard and Visa are trying to shut down Wikileaks for the same reason that the US is - because the leaks show it in a negative light.
The reason you can't post a link to 250,000 leaked state department wires isn't because they're down (links are never up or down, just the sites they point to) but because no such link exists, which I suspect you know given your "distinction without a difference" defense.
But of course the distinction is important. Leaked on the Internet means anyone can read it. Leaked to the media means a comparatively small circulation amongst a group of known, informed, accountable, individuals. Those individuals may then choose to republish the same information, but they are accountable, they see the bigger picture, and thus the situation is different.
I said you either misread me or were lying. You said I was wrong in claiming that only a few thousand papers (actually it's about 960, so it's not even that) were leaked to the Internet, and contradicted me using language implying quarter of a million cables were put on the Internet in the last leak.
I'm not really sure what the third option is. That you're a gullible idiot who was so convinced that some Wikileaks attacker was telling the truth (and, fuck me, you have to be very, very gullible at this point to believe any attack on them unless you verify the facts first, because pretty much everything from "They're just leaking diplomatic gossip" to "people are being killed over these leaks" has turned out to be bogus) that you posted, without verifying first, an attack on what I posted?
Fact: Wikileaks did not leak 250,000 diplomatic cables to the Internet. That's simply false. Almost everything that's on the Internet right now, constituting less than a thousand diplomatic cables, is material that was republished either by the New York Times, the Guardian Newspaper, or Le Monde, all staffed by accountable, responsible, journalists.
That's reality, and I suggest you dig out a link to an unencrypted archive of 250,000 diplomatic cables if you really want to continue this debate.
Patently false. He dumped 90,000 documents about the War in Afghanistan in July. Then he dumped another 400,000 about the Iraq War in August. And now he's dumped 250,000 State Department cables. By my count, that's almost 750,000 documents.
Nope, you've either misread what I wrote, or you're outright lying.
Wikileaks has leaked that many documents to journalists, but it has not put anything like that number on the Internet. Only those cleared by the various media organizations involved (such as the NYT and Guardian) have actually been put on the Internet.
If you disbelieve me, I invite you to show me the link to the 250,000 State Department cables.
Wikileaks has only dumped a few thousand document onto the Internet. Specifically those identified as being of interest by the journalists who had been given the full dossier.
Nope, Shannon wouldn't disagree with me, any more than he'd disagree with me if I said the move from V.21 modems to V.34 improved bandwidth exponentially (unless, of course, he was purely talking in Hz rather than bits per second, but then your complaint would have been about terminology rather than Shannon's law!)
LTE gets you up to 326Mbps/20MHz. HSPA (not +) gets you 14Mbps/5MHz (56Mbps/20MHz). Standard W-CDMA gets you just 2Mbps/5MHz (8Mbps/20MHz). I don't think I need to put in the figures for EDGE and GPRS to prove the point!
I believe that someone who is the victim of abuses, governmental or otherwise, has the absolute right to justice. And frankly:
The US government has no business preventing the fair investigation and trial of people, Americans, government workers, or otherwise, accused of serious crimes
The US government has no business ordering its officers to commit crimes, in the US or abroad
No government official has any business committing serious crimes in any country, regardless of whether that official is "just following orders"
And if the US government is partially to blame for the crimes committed, there is absolutely no excuse for it trying to cover up the crime and deny the victims justice! If it believes its employees were "just following US government policy", then it might have a duty to compensate the officers involved to a certain degree, but following orders is not a get-out-of-Jail-free card, especially when it comes to kidnapping, torture, and unlawful killing.
Wikileaks didn't point out any of those wrong doings, which is what a Whistle-blower site is supposedly supposed to be doing. pointing out wrongs that need to be corrected. Instead they just dumped the cables on the internet and real journalists dug through them to find a (very) few incidents of questionable activity.
This is not true, from start to finish.
Wikileaks worked with journalists and has only dumped the subset of documents that journalists consider newsworthy on the Internet. The full archive is, as yet, unavailable to the public. I believe an encrypted version is floating around, the famous "insurance policy" of Assange, but, well, encrypted is encrypted.
So:
1. Wikileaks did, indeed, point out those wrong doings, as part of publishing specific evidence to back-up journalist's claims about wrong-doings reported in the papers. They have not published anything outside of that.
2. Even if the allegations Glenn quoted amounted to the entire scandalous part of the dossier, I'd hardly describe these as "very few" or even "few" incidents of questionable activity. The US government interfering in the justice system of TWO foreign powers in an attempt to COVER UP kidnapping, torture, and unlawful death is a MAJOR wrong, as is condoning torture when administered by our allies. Lying in order to justify a war is a MAJOR wrong.
Do I really need to continue? Handwaving doesn't make these "very few" incidents of "questionable" activity. These are extremely serious issues that deserve public discussion - and in a sane world, these allegations would result in imprisonments of Prime Ministers and Presidents. In a sane world, our media wouldn't bury the stories for fear that its corporate masters would not get the subsidies, government contracts, and licenses they need to remain in business. In a sane world, you'd be outraged.
I was just cutting and pasting, I'd have linked to the sources directly but I'm hungry.
In any case, the GGP didn't claim the issue with Wikileaks was the volume, it was that there were no specific wrong doings in the dumps. There most certainly was, as Glenn's excellent collection of links clearly shows.
If someone wants to make a case that making available a large quantity of material about government actions is wrong even if the dump demonstrates clear, serious, government malfeasance, then that's another issue. I'd take issue with that claim, for hopefully obvious reasons.
(3) the StateDepartment under Bush andObama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see ThePhiladelphia Inquirer's WillBunch today about this:"The day BarackObama Lied to me");
(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by theWikiLeaks documents;
(9)Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.
(TotH to GG, as usual.)
I appreciate why you believe what you wrote. You might want to reconsider your position given your primary source of news is from organizations whose allegiance is to parent corporations that, like Amazon, absolutely cannot afford to get on the wrong side of the government that regulates them.
I don't know, I donated to Wikileaks once, and then the following week a package of over 10,000 of my private emails, credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc, was leaked and republished in the New York Times and Guardian Newspaper.
Absolutely. This isn't even stimulus-worthy, Wifi base stations require virtually no American labor.
It also promotes the lie that the cellular networks are congested due to lack of resources. In reality, AT&T and Verizon, to name but two, are sitting on unused AWS spectrum in virtually the entire country, that they've made a policy decision to buy but as yet not deploy anything to. There are also several companies sitting on spectrum in the 2GHz to 4GHz bands, supposedly to roll-out TDD variants of WiMAX and UMTS-TDD, but who've not had the funds to actually set the things up.
There is, believe it or not, a spectrum *glut* by any sane measurement of spectrum usage at the moment, and as spectrum efficiency improves year by year, with technologies from HSPA+ to LTE improving available bandwidth per MHz exponentially, the old arguments for treating wireless services as inherently more expensive than wired are fast falling away.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what you mean, I always see red when people do that... ;-)
They weren't preventing anyone from talking, they were however doing what they could to disrupt business.
You know, under normal circumstances I'd be very against what those acting under the "Anonymous" label have done, just as many on Slashdot are right now. But these are not normal circumstances. We have a government - correction, we have an establishment, because this is an unholy alliance of government, big business, and big media, all of whom are covering up and even assisting with each other's crimes, that's gone rogue. And not just mildly rogue, it's an establishment that's fraudulently launched wars, kidnapped, tortured, raped, and destroyed. There are literally tens of millions of direct victims of this government, and hundreds of thousands of people victimized to the point of being tortured, raped, kidnapped, or killed.
Two years ago this country reacted to what little was getting out by electing someone who had claimed to be against this (and made it a big part of what he supposedly stood for) since he first hit the national spotlight in 2004. And his actions on taking office? To continue virtually every aspect of what made the previous administration so evil, in some cases going further.
Meanwhile, when there's even a hint that some of the truth will come out, the establishment has lead Denial of Service attacks of their own, with the major credit card companies abusing their monopoly to make it harder for such acts to be funded, and Amazon.com going as far not merely to disconnect Wikileaks, but to spread smears against them, smears they're continuing to spread today.
So I'm ambivalent about the hacker attacks. Frankly, I think most of the "victims" deserve it - in fact, they deserve much worse. In a decent world, we'd see:
Be very clear about this: these organizations are doing what they're doing for no other purpose than to assist a rogue establishment in preventing the people from knowing the about the crimes it has committed. They're helping in a campaign to prevent people from knowing that the government, and the media, lied about the wars they started. They're helping in a campaign to prevent people from knowing that, for example, private contractors can rape and kill with impunity, that the government will continue to give them money after they've done so, and that the media will, just by being asked, not report upon it, or if it does, bury it where it will not be seen.
This is what is being hidden. This is what people like Jeff Bezos are more than willing to be a part of.
And I'm supposed to be upset about a bunch of frustrated "hackers" trying to bring down their web servers? Why? They're not engaging in violence, they're not preventing anyone from speaking, and the "right" options - the ones everyone are supposed to use before breaking the law - have been denied in the worst way possible. Democracy was tried. The law isn't even available.
I'm not going to encourage anyone to assist with the DDoS attacks, and not going to engage in them myself. But I simply cannot condemn them. And frankly, if Jeff Bezos or the directors of the major credit cards were in front of me right now, I'd spit on them.
The statement I quoted. Which is still on their website several days later.
If it had been withdrawn at the time, you might have a case for claiming they believed someone else's lie, but it's still up there, long after everyone at Amazon have been made aware that the statement is factually false.
It means third party, Internet connected, managed services.
For example, a company that offers network connected scalable processing and bandwidth services is offering "cloud" services.
Like Amazon.com, for example. Amazon.com offers this as one of their services. They used to sell this service to some-one called "Wikileaks".
Interesting fact: Amazon stopped selling those services to Wikileaks, and lied about why. Amazon claimed they were suspending the hosting because Wikileaks had published 250,000 embassy cables without vetting them first. But this was untrue. Questions have been asked as to why Amazon.com did this, and Amazon.com claimed this false smear in order to deflect the allegation that they had done so under government pressure, something they denied in the same press release.
Now the Feds are announcing a massive move over to cloud computing, a move that will result in hundreds of millions of dollars to those companies who get the contracts.
I wonder why Amazon.com dropped Wikileaks as a customer. And why they felt the need to lie about why. And why they did this just before hundreds of millions of dollars became available for services like the ones they offer, from an organization that really doesn't like Wikileaks.
Just an FYI: That's a little like saying "They can release a Python version of C" or "They can release a Windows version of Unix."
Dalvik implements an entirely different, incompatible, virtual machine system to a JVM. Yes, you can compile programs written in the Java programming language to Dalvik codes (and like a JVM, the Java programming language is the primary development language for Dalvik systems), but the same is true of .NET (the name of the Microsoft's implementation of the Java programming language for .NET is J#)
Credibility means fairly little to the organization organizing the leaks - what matters are the outlets.
I think Wikileaks got it exactly right this time, using some of the most respected newspapers in the world to filter and disseminate the cables, rather than attempting to dump them directly. Sure, they got stick from the usual suspects, but the reality is that nobody is questioning the credibility of the leaks themselves: if The Guardian posts a cable reporting that, to use a real example, defense contractor Dyncorp organizes child rape parties for Afghan warlords in order to close the sale, and the US government's complicity in covering it up, we pretty much accept it, in a way less likely to happen if it's some random voice on the Internet posting what they claim is a cable.
OpenLeaks is made up of people who know this. I don't think they'll have an issue.
The locals including a US contractor, DynCorp, taxpayers money, and a US government-organized cover-up.
But remember kids, it's just diplomatic gossip, that would be irresponsible to make public!
No, I didn't, and unless you believe that transparency is not Wikileak's mission, I can't see how you can possibly think what I posted is an answer to the assertion that they're not only publishing selected cables that match Wikileak's mission.
Posting only what a select group of respected, accountable, journalists from respected, accountable, newspapers, whom Wikileaks believes to be trustworthy and acting in good faith, believe is newsworthy would strike me as being exactly consistent with the transparency mission.
There's certainly something interesting going on.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/08/104911/one-of-wikileaks-founder-assanges.html
You're right. IN fact, they should have brought in outside experts, say, respected journalists who have a large body of knowledge about what is evidence of actual government malfeasance, had them look over the 250,000 documents, and then only published, say, the 960 documents or so that those journalists identify as being important.
Wait a minute! That's EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.
Here's a FAQ for all of those who believe the lies currently being stated by Boehmer, Lieberman, and others regarding this leak: http://futureoftheinternet.org/wikileaks-cable-faq
Actually, I believe terrorism is defined as "Engaging in an act Ol' Squiggie here finds objectionable", which includes your posting. So if you could turn yourself in a full body cavity search at your friendly TSA camp, I'd be very grateful.
PS: You're an idiot.
Well, according to Joe Lieberman and Fox News, Australian Julian Assange is guilty of the very serious US crime of Treason...
Mastercard are not the bitches for the US, in some ways it's the opposite. Mastercard and Visa are trying to shut down Wikileaks for the same reason that the US is - because the leaks show it in a negative light.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard?CMP=twt_gu
But remember kids, it's just "diplomatic gossip" like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC tell you.
They could at least have made the headline "Rediculous Rouge Satellite Shuts Down US Weather Service Boxen".
Why don't you quit while you're behind?
The reason you can't post a link to 250,000 leaked state department wires isn't because they're down (links are never up or down, just the sites they point to) but because no such link exists, which I suspect you know given your "distinction without a difference" defense.
But of course the distinction is important. Leaked on the Internet means anyone can read it. Leaked to the media means a comparatively small circulation amongst a group of known, informed, accountable, individuals. Those individuals may then choose to republish the same information, but they are accountable, they see the bigger picture, and thus the situation is different.
I said you either misread me or were lying. You said I was wrong in claiming that only a few thousand papers (actually it's about 960, so it's not even that) were leaked to the Internet, and contradicted me using language implying quarter of a million cables were put on the Internet in the last leak.
I'm not really sure what the third option is. That you're a gullible idiot who was so convinced that some Wikileaks attacker was telling the truth (and, fuck me, you have to be very, very gullible at this point to believe any attack on them unless you verify the facts first, because pretty much everything from "They're just leaking diplomatic gossip" to "people are being killed over these leaks" has turned out to be bogus) that you posted, without verifying first, an attack on what I posted?
Fact: Wikileaks did not leak 250,000 diplomatic cables to the Internet. That's simply false. Almost everything that's on the Internet right now, constituting less than a thousand diplomatic cables, is material that was republished either by the New York Times, the Guardian Newspaper, or Le Monde, all staffed by accountable, responsible, journalists.
That's reality, and I suggest you dig out a link to an unencrypted archive of 250,000 diplomatic cables if you really want to continue this debate.
Nope, you've either misread what I wrote, or you're outright lying.
Wikileaks has leaked that many documents to journalists, but it has not put anything like that number on the Internet. Only those cleared by the various media organizations involved (such as the NYT and Guardian) have actually been put on the Internet.
If you disbelieve me, I invite you to show me the link to the 250,000 State Department cables.
Wikileaks has only dumped a few thousand document onto the Internet. Specifically those identified as being of interest by the journalists who had been given the full dossier.
Nope, Shannon wouldn't disagree with me, any more than he'd disagree with me if I said the move from V.21 modems to V.34 improved bandwidth exponentially (unless, of course, he was purely talking in Hz rather than bits per second, but then your complaint would have been about terminology rather than Shannon's law!)
LTE gets you up to 326Mbps/20MHz. HSPA (not +) gets you 14Mbps/5MHz (56Mbps/20MHz). Standard W-CDMA gets you just 2Mbps/5MHz (8Mbps/20MHz). I don't think I need to put in the figures for EDGE and GPRS to prove the point!
Then you and I have very different moral codes.
I believe that someone who is the victim of abuses, governmental or otherwise, has the absolute right to justice. And frankly:
And if the US government is partially to blame for the crimes committed, there is absolutely no excuse for it trying to cover up the crime and deny the victims justice! If it believes its employees were "just following US government policy", then it might have a duty to compensate the officers involved to a certain degree, but following orders is not a get-out-of-Jail-free card, especially when it comes to kidnapping, torture, and unlawful killing.
This is not true, from start to finish.
Wikileaks worked with journalists and has only dumped the subset of documents that journalists consider newsworthy on the Internet. The full archive is, as yet, unavailable to the public. I believe an encrypted version is floating around, the famous "insurance policy" of Assange, but, well, encrypted is encrypted.
So:
1. Wikileaks did, indeed, point out those wrong doings, as part of publishing specific evidence to back-up journalist's claims about wrong-doings reported in the papers. They have not published anything outside of that.
2. Even if the allegations Glenn quoted amounted to the entire scandalous part of the dossier, I'd hardly describe these as "very few" or even "few" incidents of questionable activity. The US government interfering in the justice system of TWO foreign powers in an attempt to COVER UP kidnapping, torture, and unlawful death is a MAJOR wrong, as is condoning torture when administered by our allies. Lying in order to justify a war is a MAJOR wrong.
Do I really need to continue? Handwaving doesn't make these "very few" incidents of "questionable" activity. These are extremely serious issues that deserve public discussion - and in a sane world, these allegations would result in imprisonments of Prime Ministers and Presidents. In a sane world, our media wouldn't bury the stories for fear that its corporate masters would not get the subsidies, government contracts, and licenses they need to remain in business. In a sane world, you'd be outraged.
I was just cutting and pasting, I'd have linked to the sources directly but I'm hungry.
In any case, the GGP didn't claim the issue with Wikileaks was the volume, it was that there were no specific wrong doings in the dumps. There most certainly was, as Glenn's excellent collection of links clearly shows.
If someone wants to make a case that making available a large quantity of material about government actions is wrong even if the dump demonstrates clear, serious, government malfeasance, then that's another issue. I'd take issue with that claim, for hopefully obvious reasons.
They are, in fact, pointing out wrong doings.
(TotH to GG, as usual.) I appreciate why you believe what you wrote. You might want to reconsider your position given your primary source of news is from organizations whose allegiance is to parent corporations that, like Amazon, absolutely cannot afford to get on the wrong side of the government that regulates them.
I don't know, I donated to Wikileaks once, and then the following week a package of over 10,000 of my private emails, credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc, was leaked and republished in the New York Times and Guardian Newspaper.
Never again...
Absolutely. This isn't even stimulus-worthy, Wifi base stations require virtually no American labor.
It also promotes the lie that the cellular networks are congested due to lack of resources. In reality, AT&T and Verizon, to name but two, are sitting on unused AWS spectrum in virtually the entire country, that they've made a policy decision to buy but as yet not deploy anything to. There are also several companies sitting on spectrum in the 2GHz to 4GHz bands, supposedly to roll-out TDD variants of WiMAX and UMTS-TDD, but who've not had the funds to actually set the things up.
There is, believe it or not, a spectrum *glut* by any sane measurement of spectrum usage at the moment, and as spectrum efficiency improves year by year, with technologies from HSPA+ to LTE improving available bandwidth per MHz exponentially, the old arguments for treating wireless services as inherently more expensive than wired are fast falling away.
My mistake, I got the first allegation wrong - the German case was about torture, not murder.
Glenn Greenwald, as always, has links here.