Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts

Saturday, 3 September 2011

U.S. Sources Exposed as Unredacted State Department Cables Are Unleashed Online



An encrypted WikiLeaks file containing 251,000 unredacted U.S. State Department cables is now widely available online, along with the passphrase to open it. The release of the documents in raw form, including the names of U.S. informants around the globe, has raised concerns that dozens of people could now be in danger.
The release of the file comes amidst a heated blame fest between WikiLeaks and the Guardian newspaper in London, which let slip the encrypted version of the database and the decryption key respectively. As details surface about how the leak occurred, it appears that both organizations share the blame.
The 1.73-GB file and passphrase were published Thursday on Cryptome, a competing secret-spilling site, after news broke over the last week that the file had been circulating on the internet unnoticed for several months. Wired.com’s keyword search of the file shows that the uncensored cables contain more than 2,000 occurrences of the phrase “strictly protect”, which is used in cables to denote sources of information whose identities diplomats consider confidential.
It’s unclear how the release will affect imprisoned 23-year-old Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s facing a court-martial for allegedly leaking the database to WikiLeaks last year.
WikiLeaks had given the Guardian access to the file, along with the passphrase, last summer when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange met with Guardian editor David Leigh.
WikiLeaks, the Guardian and other media outlets have been publishing the cables in dribs and drabs since last November, after carefully removing the names of most informants. The full database of cables was to have been released piecemeal through Nov. 29 of this year. But last Friday, as news of the leaked file and passphrase was made public, WikiLeaks suddenly began publishing a torrent of cables from the database. It has so far published about 144,000 cables, most of them unclassified. The Associated Press found the names of 90 confidential U.S. sources, including human rights workers laboring under totalitarian regimes, named in that subset of cables.
WikiLeaks said in a statement that it “advanced its regular publication schedule, to get as much of the material as possible into the hands of journalists and human rights lawyers who need it,” before information about the file and passphrase was widely published and repressive regimes sifted through the cables. WikiLeaks has been soliciting votes from the public on whether people agree or disagree that all 250,000 of the cables should be released in raw, unredacted form.
The popular vote favors release, and WikiLeaks has hinted on Twitter its intention to publish. But this time third parties have overtaken the secret-spilling site, and the file is already easily found elsewhere.
WikiLeaks blames the Guardian for disclosing the password in a book it published earlier this year about its WikiLeaks collaboration. WikiLeaks called the Guardian’s action “gross negligence or malice.” “The Guardian disclosure is a violation of the confidentiality agreement between WikiLeaks and Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, signed July 30, 2010,” the group said in a lengthy statement.
The Guardian has downplayed its role in the debacle, while simultaneously revealing a lack of security savvy at the dawn of its relationship with WikiLeaks. The paper notes that although the Guardian’s book did reveal the passphrase, it did not reveal the location of the file, and that Assange had told the paper that “it was a temporary password which would expire and be deleted in a matter of hours. It was a meaningless piece of information to anyone except the person(s) who created the database.”
“No concerns were expressed when the book was published, and if anyone at WikiLeaks had thought this compromised security, they have had seven months to remove the files,” the paper went on to say. “That they didn’t do so clearly shows the problem was not caused by the Guardian’s book.”
Crypto keys, however, last forever, and even if WikiLeaks hadn’t blundered in its handling of the encrypted file, the Guardian clearly should have treated the key as highly sensitive for the foreseeable future.
The fracas heated up last Friday when an editor for the German news weekly Der Freitag revealed that his publication had found the uncensored cables in a 1.73-GB password-protected file named “cables.csv” that was available on the internet, and that the password had inadvertently been published online.
WikiLeaks revealed on Wednesday that the passphrase had indeed been published in a book written by Leigh. In the book, Leigh wrote that during the paper’s meeting with Assange in Belgium last year, Assange had given him the passphrase, in part in writing, and in part orally.
Assange had told the paper that the file, which was placed in a subdirectory on a WikiLeaks server, would remain online only a short time, after which it would be removed. Assange, however, apparently never removed the file, and it later found its way into the hands of the organization’s former spokesman, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and then back to WikiLeaks, after which it wound up on BitTorrent as part of a large archive of WikiLeaks files, which could be downloaded by anyone.

[Wired]

Friday, 25 February 2011

PayPal Freezes Account of Group Raising Money for Bradley Manning

PayPal has frozen the account of a group that has been raising money for the legal defense of accused WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning, citing a failure to meet PayPal’s requirement for nonprofit groups.
According to Courage to Resist, a military veterans advocacy group that has been raising donations for Manning’s defense, PayPal froze the account after the group refused to link its PayPal account to its checking account, which would give the online payment provider access to funds in the checking account.

“We exchanged numerous e-mails and phone calls with the legal department and the office of executive escalations of PayPal,” said Jeff Paterson in a press release. “They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization’s checking account by default. Our accounting does not allow for this type of direct access by a third party, nor do I trust PayPal as a business entity with this responsibility given their punitive actions against WikiLeaks — an entity not charged with any crime by any government on Earth.”

[PayPal has since unfrozen the account. See update at bottom of this post.]

The advocacy group has been raising funds for the Manning Support Network and has so far paid Manning’s defense attorney at least $50,000 from money that it raised on the soldier’s behalf. Paterson did not respond to a call for comment, but said in the press release that his group opened the PayPal account in 2006.

A spokesman for PayPal took issue with how the advocacy group has characterized the matter, saying this was not about Courage to Resist’s support for Manning. Company policy requires all nonprofit organizations with 501(c)3 status [.pdf] to link their PayPal account to a bank account. That provides a clear audit trail if the IRS or other government agency ever raises questions about an organization’s non-profit status.

“It’s pretty normal practice to be honest,” said PayPal spokesman Anuj Nayar. “It doesn’t normally cause the issues that it has caused in this case. We were very surprised to see the press release.”

He acknowledges that linking to the account allows PayPal to withdraw funds from the bank account as well, but said this is never done without authorization and is generally done only when PayPal has determined that a merchant or organization is engaged in fraud.

He added that the frozen account was not specifically a Bradley Manning legal defense account.
“The release makes it very much sound like they have a legal defense fund connected to PayPal and that’s what we’ve turned off,” Nayar said. “But there is no PayPal account for a Manning legal defense fund. It’s a Courage to Resist account.”

Asked why, if the Courage to Resist account was opened in 2006, PayPal hadn’t raised the issue of linking it to a bank account earlier, Nayar did not have an immediate response. He said only that nonprofit organizations are allowed to open accounts easily and quickly.

“We don’t limit them prior to opening and saying they’re a nonprofit before allowing them to open an account,” he said.

With regard to PayPal’s assertion that it’s only following company policy, Courage to Resist says it repeatedly requested and was refused formal documentation from PayPal describing its policy.

“They opted to apply an exceptional hurdle for us to clear in order to continue as a customer, whereas we have clearly provided the legally required information and verification,” the group wrote.

Manning’s defense is expected to cost about $115,000. In addition to the funds raised by Courage to Resist, WikiLeaks — after a protracted delay — contributed $15,100 to Manning’s defense in January.

Last December, PayPal froze the account of the Germany-based Wau Holland foundation, which manages the bulk of donations to WikiLeaks. PayPal asserted at the time that WikiLeaks was in violation of its terms of service.

“PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity,” read a statement on PayPal’s website. “We’ve notified the account holder of this action.”

PayPal didn’t indicate the nature of the illegal activity that WikiLeaks allegedly promoted, but the move against WikiLeaks came after the site began publishing 250,000 State Department cables believe to have been obtained from Manning during the time he worked as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Manning was arrested last May and is currently in custody at the U.S. Marine Corps’ brig in Quantico, Virginia, awaiting a hearing in his case.

Updated at 6:30 pm: PayPal has released a statement on its blog saying it has decided to unfreeze the Courage to Resist account.

“Upon review, and as part of our normal business procedures, we have decided to lift the temporary restriction placed on their account because we have sufficient information to meet our statutory ‘Know Your Customer’ obligations,” the statement reads in part. “The Courage to Resist PayPal account is now fully operational.”

[Wired]

Thursday, 24 February 2011

Judge approves extradition of WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange to Sweden over sex allegations

Julian Assange
Decision: Julian Assange at Belmarsh magistrates’ court today to hear the judgement

Judge approves extradition of WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange to Sweden over sex allegations

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was today ordered to be sent back to Sweden to face sex allegations.
His lawyers immediately indicated they will appeal which could delay any final decision well into next year.

The extradition was ordered by District Judge Howard Riddle at a packed hearing at Belmarsh magistrates' court in Woolwich.

He told the court that extradition was compatible with the European human rights convention, "so I must order that Mr Assange be extradited". The judge said Assange had avoided interrogation before leaving Sweden last September and condemned his Swedish lawyer for "a deliberate attempt to mislead the court".

The judge also said there was no evidence Assange faced further charges in the United States and could be tortured or face the death penalty there.

Assange had arrived at court looking confident. Many of his celebrity supporters including Bianca Jagger and Jemima Khan filled the public gallery.

The 39-year-old Australian faces three charges of sexually assaulting one woman and one of raping another during a week-long visit to Stockholm in August.

Assange denies the charges. His supporters say the criminal inquiry and extradition request are politically motivated and breach his human rights.

He claims they were trumped up as a ruse to take him eventually against his will to the US to stand trial for treason over his exposure of state secrets. He fears he could be sent to Guantanamo Bay and, if convicted, face the death penalty. His lawyers had argued that if sent to Sweden he could face a "secret" trial behind closed doors.

Outside court today, Assange claimed he was a victim of the European arrest warrant system and abuses in Swedish justice. In a rambling speech he said he would appeal against extradition during which "we will shed light on these problems".

"This case is not just about me and the pressure the US brings to bear on the UK and Sweden and the media, it offers real hope for reform of key aspects of the Swedish justice system and the European arrest warrant procedures," he said.

The next step is likely to be a hearing at the High Court where Assange will seek a judicial review of Judge Riddle's decision. If that court rules against him, Assange can apply to the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.

After that his lawyers might seek a stay by applying to the European Court of Human Rights.

[London Evening Standard]

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Anonymous to security firm working with FBI: "You've angered the hive"

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-to-security-firm-working-with-fbi-youve-angered-the-hive.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Internet vigilante group Anonymous turned its sights on security firm HBGary last week, in an attempt to 'teach them a lesson they'll never forget'. The firm had been working with the FBI to unmask members of Anonymous following the pro-Wikileaks attacks on various financial services companies.

To read the full article on Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-to-security-firm-working-with-fbi-youve-angered-the-hive.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss