Julian Assange's lawyers 'preparing for possible US charges' | Media | The Guardian

Quote:

Lawyers acting for Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, said today they are preparing for a possible indictment by the US authorities. Jennifer Robinson said her team had heard from "several different US lawyers rumours that an indictment was on its way or had happened already, but we don't know". According to some reports, Washington is seeking to prosecute Assange under the 1917 act, which was used unsuccessfully to try to gag the New York Times when it published the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s. However, despite escalating rhetoric over the last fortnight, no charges have yet been lodged, and government sources say they are unaware any such move is being prepared. Robinson said Assange's team did not believe the US had grounds to prosecute him but understood that Washington was "looking closely at other charges, such as computer charges, so we have one eye on it". Assange is in Wandsworth prison in south London after being refused bail on Tuesday. Sweden is seeking his extradition over allegations of sexual assault. Speaking to ABC News, Robinson said she did not believe the Espionage Act applied to Assange, adding: "In any event he's entitled to first amendment protection as publisher of WikiLeaks and any prosecution under the Espionage Act would in my view be unconstitutional and puts at risk all media organisations in the US." Robinson said Assange was being held in solitary confinement in London with restricted access to a phone and his lawyers. "This means he is under significant surveillance but also means he has more restrictive conditions than other prisoners. Considering the circumstances he was incredibly positive and upbeat." Earlier this week, the US attorney general, Eric Holder, said the United States had been put at risk by the flood of confidential diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks and he authorised a criminal investigation. Holder said: "The lives of people who work for the American people has been put at risk; the American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that are, I believe, arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way. We are doing everything that we can. "We have a very serious, active, ongoing investigation that is criminal in nature. I authorised just last week a number of things to be done so that we can hopefully get to the bottom of this and hold people accountable, as they should be." In a letter to the Guardian today, prominent supporters including John Pilger, Terry Jones, Miriam Margolyes and AL Kennedy called for Assange's release. "We protest at the attacks on WikiLeaks and, in particular, on Julian Assange ," they wrote, adding that the leaks have "assisted democracy in revealing the real views of our governments over a range of issues".

"Officers! Arrest that baby!"



Pilger? Big yuck.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

A group of pro-Wikileaks activists who coordinated a series of web attacks have explained their actions. The Anonymous group said they were not hackers but "average internet citizens" who felt motivated to act because of perceived injustices against Wikileaks. The group said it had no interest in stealing credit card details or attacking critical infrastructure. The details were posted online by one of the many factions claiming to carry out the attacks. "Anonymous is not a group, but rather an internet gathering," it said in a statement published on 10 December. It said the ongoing attacks were a "symbolic action" targeted at corporate website that had withdrawn services from Wikileaks. "We do not want to steal your personal information or credit card numbers. We also do not seek to attack critical infrastructure of companies such as Mastercard, Visa, PayPal or Amazon," it read. The statement comes as other documents have come to light suggesting the group may be changing its tactics. Numbers game The statement was published by one of the several Anonymous groups operating online. "Anonymous has a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives," it said. Continue reading the main story Is taking part in these attacks illegal? The short answer is yes, according to Struan Robertson, legal director at law firm Pinsent Masons. He told the BBC that in the UK, taking part in the attacks would be a breach of the Computer Misuse Act. He said that anyone found guilty of taking part could face "up to ten years imprisonment". "Even downloading the [software] tools to assist in committing these attacks… are themselves guilty of an offence," he said. He said this could carry a sentence of up to two years in the UK. Different countries will have different laws and penalties. However, security expert Peter Wood said that in practice it would be very difficult to track down the people involved because the attacks used "anonymising software" to hid their tracks online. It also acknowledged that there was "perceived dissent between individuals" in the group, but said that it did not threaten its structure. For example, members have distanced themselves from a member of the group, calling himself Coldblood, who spoke with several media outlets, including the BBC. Several Twitter accounts have also appeared that claim to be coordinating Operation Payback, as the attacks are known. Anonymous has been conducting the attacks using a tool called LOIC that allows people to bombard a site of their choosing with data. The tool launches what is known as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, which tries to knock a website offline by bombarding it with so much data that it cannot respond. The LOIC tool has been downloaded more than 46,000 times. However, the group has not always had the numbers needed to make its operations successful. On 9 December, for example, the group abandoned an attack on the online retailer Amazon after some elements admitted it did not have enough people using the tool. "While it is indeed possible that Anonymous may not have been able to take Amazon.com down in a DDoS attack, this is not the only reason the attack never occurred," read the document. "After the attack was so advertised in the media, we felt that it would affect people such as consumers in a negative way and make them feel threatened by Anonymous. Simply put, attacking a major online retailer when people are buying presents for their loved ones would be in bad taste." Instead, the attack was re-directed towards Paypal and its computer systems, which, according to a status page, have intermittently suffered "performance issues" ever since. Early on 10 December, elements of the group also attacked money transfer site Moneybookers, knocking it offline briefly at 1100 GMT. Criminal chain Defences against the attacks are being drawn up as security firms scrutinise the code behind LOIC to work out how attacks happen. Some suggest that well-written firewall rules would be able to filter out most of the harmful traffic. Information is also starting to emerge about the other resources that supporters of Anonymous have been able to bring to bear. Research by security firm Panda suggests that some of the earlier attacks on payment firms were aided by hi-tech criminals. Continue reading the main story What is Anonymous? 'Anonymous' describes itself as an 'internet gathering'. The term is used to describe a leaderless collective of people who come together online, commonly to stage a protest. The groups vary in size and make-up depending on the cause. Members often identify themselves in web videos by wearing the Guy Fawkes masks popularised by the book and film V for Vendetta. Its protests often take the form of disrupting websites and services. Its use of the term Anonymous comes from a series of websites frequented by members, such as the anarchic image board 4Chan. These allow users to post without having to register or provide a name. As a result, their comments are tagged "Anonymous". In the past, groups have staged high-profile protests against plans by the Australian government to filter the internet and the Church of Scientology. The latter spilled over into the real world with protests by masked members outside churches. An offshoot of Anonymous called Project Chanology focuses purely on this cause. Many Anonymous protests tackle issues of free speech and preserving the openness of the net. Luis Corrons, technical director of Panda Labs, said during its investigation of Anonymous' attacks its analysts got talking to some of the activists via Internet Relay Chat (IRC). One of those activists said he had a botnet of 30,000 machines under his control that he was planning to use on behalf of Wikileaks. "The guy said he had this botnet which was nothing special and was not specifically designed to do these attacks but could be used to do them," said Mr Corrons. A botnet is a network of hijacked home computers that have been compromised by their owners visiting a booby-trapped webpage that installs code to hand over control to a hi-tech criminal. Mr Corrons said a botnet with 30,000 machines in it was "about average size". Most of the spam sent around the net is funnelled through machines that are in botnets. It was becoming clear, he said, that some attacks were aided by the 30,000 machines under the cyber criminals control. "We know for sure the botnet was used in at least one attack on Paypal," he said. Panda itself has come under attack with its blog knocked offline for hours by an attack very similar to those Anonymous has been carrying out. Mr Corrons said that, so far, it did not why it was being attacked or who was attacking it. Fresh leaks There are also suggestions that the Anonymous group might be about to drop the web attacks in favour of another tactic. A message posted on the 4chan image board, out of which Anonymous has grown, suggests dropping LOIC in favour of publicising information in the diplomatic cables that Wikileaks is releasing. Searching for the less-well publicised cables and spreading the information they contain around the web could be more effective than simply knocking out sites deemed to be enemies of Wikileaks, it said. The message also suggests using misleading tags on posts and YouTube videos to trick people into reading or viewing the information. "They don't fear the LOIC, they fear exposure," read the message. It is not yet clear if the call to change tactics has been taken up by the Anonymous group at large. In related news, Wikileaks looks set to have a rival as former staffers of the whistle-blowing website prepare to launch. Set up by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Open Leaks is expected to launch in mid_December and will host and post information leaked to it.

BBC News - Anonymous Wikileaks supporters explain web attacks

The main thing stopping me from downloading this for a little looksee is the suspicion that it'll probably have about 18 tons of malware attached.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

In related news, Wikileaks looks set to have a rival as former staffers of the whistle-blowing website prepare to launch. Set up by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Open Leaks is expected to launch in mid_December and will host and post information leaked to it.

Workplace resentments: strong enough to conquer even the litte voice inside that's screaming "Hey, Danny! Buddy! It might not be such a great idea to set up a website that's exactly the same as one that just went mega-global and ate up the market! What d'you say? Danny! Are you listening?"

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Analysing LOIC: http://www.simpleweb.org/reports/loic-report.pdf

Pretty interesting that it doesn't bother to hide the attacker's IP address - but then in the original incarnation that wouldn't have been necessary. I guess it'd be possible for individual users to find a way round this once they were aware of it though.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

UN defends human right to WikiLeaked info ? The Register

Quote:

The United Nations has responded to the ongoing WikiLeaks kerfuffle, urging member states to – ahem – remember the basic human right to access information held by governments and other public authorities. In issuing a joint statement on Wikileaks with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations (UN) special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression does not mention the US or other involved countries by name. But he does mention "the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks" – a reference to the classified US State Department cables released earlier this month – and clearly, he's concerned that in responding to the leaks, the US and other countries will step on established international legal principles – if they haven't already. The UN statement was promptly tweeted by WikiLeaks itself. "The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions," the statement reads. "The right to access to information protects the right of every person to access public information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf. It is a right that has received particular attention from the international community, given its importance to the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes. "Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation." Any exceptions to this basic right, the statement continues, should be precisely defined – and should not be misused. "The right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests such as national security and the rights and security of other persons," it says. "Secrecy laws should define national security precisely and indicate clearly the criteria which should be used in determining whether or not information can be declared secret. Exceptions to access to information on national security or other grounds should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information." The White House dubbed the leaked diplomatic cables "stolen and classified documents." "These cables could compromise private discussions with foreign governments and opposition leaders, and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only US foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world," the White House said in a statement the day the cables were released. "To be clear – such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government." The UN statement does not mention Julian Assange by name, and it doesn't specifically discuss the role WikiLeaks played in leaking the cables. But it does seek to protect the human rights of "journalists, media workers and civil society representatives" and other individuals "who receive and disseminate classified information because they believe it is in the public interest" as well as "government whistleblowers." "Any attempt to impose subsequent liability on those who disseminate classified information should be grounded in previously established laws enforced by impartial and independent legal systems with full respect for due process guarantees, including the right to appeal," the statement continues. US Congressional representative Peter King, due to head of the House Intelligence Committee when the new Congress convenes next year, and Senate Intelligence Committee heads Dianne Feinstein and Kit Bond have asked that Julian Assange be charged under the 1917 US Espionage Act, and Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joseph Lieberman wants to know why Assange, who is not a US citizen, hasn't already been charged with treason. "We can go back to the earlier dump of classified documents mostly related to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that occurred in July, and to me that was a violation of the Espionage Act as well," he has said. The UN statement also seems to address speculation that the US government has put pressure on the likes of Amazon, PayPal, and MasterCard to prevent WikiLeaks from using its services. "Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content." And it would seem to answer concerns that the Swedish rape allegations against Assange are part of an effort to crack down on WikiLeaks: "Illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds." It even decries public officials who make calls for "illegitimate retributive action." Meanwhile, the AP reports that the United Nations' special rapporteur on torture in Geneva is investigating a complaint that the Army private suspected of sharing classified documents with WikiLeaks has been mistreated while in custody. Pfc. Bradley Manning is confined to a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Virginia, and vistors claim he stays in a cell for at least 23 hours a day. ®

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.