background preloader

Wikileaks Mirrors

Wikileaks Mirrors
Related:  Renseignements WikiLeaksCableGate

WikiLeaks: RSF is peeved over reactio... 9/11 Pager data fernando fonseca | zargon Copyright © 1999-2012, LLC. All rights reserved. *One FREE .COM, .CO, .NET or .ORG with purchase of a new 12-, 24- or 36-month website builder plan. Plus ICANN fee of $0.18 per domain name per year. You must add the domain name into your cart before purchase, and you must select a domain term length equal to or less than the term length of your website builder plan to qualify for the free domain offer. + New .COMs $7.99/yr plus 18 cents/yr ICANN fee.

WikiLeaks: Reporters Sans Fact-checki... Documentary Heaven | Watch Free Documentaries Online State Department To Columbia University Students: DO NOT Discuss WikiLeaks On Facebook, Twitter UPDATE: On Monday, John H. Coatsworth, the SIPA Dean, reversed the university's earlier position, affirming that students "have a right to discuss and debate any information in the public arena...without fear of adverse consequences." Wired obtained the email: Freedom of information and expression is a core value of our institution. Thus, SIPA's position is that students have a right to discuss and debate any information in the public arena that they deem relevant to their studies or to their roles as global citizens, and to do so without fear of adverse consequences Talking about WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger your job prospects, a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week. An email from SIPA's Office of Career Services went out Tuesday afternoon with a caution from the official, an alumnus of the school. Philip J. This is not true. Stephen D.

Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity: Tech News « The past week has seen plenty of ink spilled — virtual and otherwise — about WikiLeaks and its mercurial front-man, Julian Assange, and the pressure they have come under from the U.S. government and companies such as Amazon and PayPal, both of which have blocked WikiLeaks from using their services. Why should we care about any of this? Because more than anything else, WikiLeaks is a publisher — a new kind of publisher, but a publisher nonetheless — and that makes this a freedom of the press issue. Like it or not, WikiLeaks is fundamentally a journalistic entity, and as such it deserves our protection. Not everyone agrees with this point of view, of course. This might as well be called the WikiLeaks law, since it is clearly targeted at the organization — which did not actually leak the documents (something that is already a crime under the Espionage Act) but is clearly publishing them. So what makes WikiLeaks different from the New York Times?

12 Things That The Mainstream Media Is Being Strangely Quiet About Right Now As the mainstream media continues to be obsessed with Anthony Weiner and his bizarre adventures on Twitter, much more serious events are happening around the world that are getting very little attention. In America today, if the mainstream media does not cover something it is almost as if it never happened. Right now, the worst nuclear disaster in human history continues to unfold in Japan , U.S. nuclear facilities are being threatened by flood waters, the U.S. military is bombing Yemen, gigantic cracks in the earth are appearing all over the globe and the largest wildfire in Arizona history is causing immense devastation. But Anthony Weiner, Bristol Palin and Miss USA are what the mainstream media want to tell us about and most Americans are buying it. In times like these, it is more important than ever to think for ourselves. That is why more Americans than ever are turning to the alternative media. Back on June 7th, there was a fire at Fort Calhoun. Nobody is quite sure yet.

WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange The house on Grettisgata Street, in Reykjavik, is a century old, small and white, situated just a few streets from the North Atlantic. The shifting northerly winds can suddenly bring ice and snow to the city, even in springtime, and when they do a certain kind of silence sets in. This was the case on the morning of March 30th, when a tall Australian man named Julian Paul Assange, with gray eyes and a mop of silver-white hair, arrived to rent the place. Assange is an international trafficker, of sorts. Iceland was a natural place to develop Project B. Assange also wanted to insure that, once the video was posted online, it would be impossible to remove. Assange typically tells would-be litigants to go to hell. In his writing online, especially on Twitter, Assange is quick to lash out at perceived enemies. In private, however, Assange is often bemused and energetic. Sitting at a small wooden table in the Bunker, Assange looked exhausted. “That’s for you,” she said. “Someone?”

The Race to Fix the Classification System The massive disclosure of a quarter million diplomatic records by Wikileaks this weekend underscores the precarious state of the U.S. national security classification system. The Wikileaks project seems to be, more than anything else, an assault on secrecy. If Wikileaks were most concerned about whistleblowing, it would focus on revealing corruption. If it were concerned with historical truth, it would emphasize the discovery of verifiably true facts. This may be understood as a reaction to a real problem, namely the fact that by all accounts, the scope of government secrecy in the U.S. Although it has rarely been front-page news, important progress has been made this year in shifting U.S. government secrecy policy away from its cold war roots, and promoting greater discernment and discrimination in the use of national security classification. These are not cosmetic changes. Of course, efforts to reduce government secrecy have not been uniformly successful. Related

VIDEO: Minister Farrakhan: 'That's a Murderer in the White House' Minister Louis Farrakhan (Getty Images) A YouTube video of Minister Louis Farrakhan taking President Obama to task over the war in Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya is making its way around the Web. In the video, Farrakhan admonishes the president for turning into someone else. Farrakhan says, "We voted for our brother Barack, a beautiful human being with a sweet heart, and now he's an assassin. They turned him into them." He also raises the issue of killing Saddam Hussein over weapons of mass destruction and knowingly sending young men to fight a war based on lies. Farrakhan is visibly angry at Obama's leadership of America's intervention in the crisis in Libya, particularly his focus on bringing down Muammar Qaddafi. We find it interesting that this video from May is surfacing just as Farrakhan is set to address the United Nations. We've examined how black leaders romanticize dictators like Qaddafi, and this is a major example of it. Watch video of the speech below.

Pirate Parties Supply Wikileaks With Much Needed Servers While most traditional political parties are wary of supporting the actions of whistleblower site Wikileaks, Pirate Parties around the world have made it very clear whose side they are on. Just before the weekend Wikileaks moved to a Pirate Party owned domain, and today a conglomerate of Pirate Parties have just announced that they are now providing the site with several much needed mirror servers. This week has been quite a ride for Wikileaks, and for the herd of journalists that have been reporting on the site’s hosting difficulties. Between the DDoS attacks and the DNS-server bans, it almost went unnoticed that a leaked cable from the Spanish embassy showed that the United States wrote Spain’s proposed copyright law. It is expected that future cables will reveal more about how deeply the copyright lobby is being played out at the highest political levels, including more details on the ACTA lobby. Interestingly enough, the US Government hasn’t gone after the Wikileaks domain yet.

WikiLeaks : corriger les bugs pour ne pas débrancher la machine à scoops « 2001, L’Odysée de l’espace » de Stanley Kubrick, 1968. « Le piratage, c’est du vol. » « S’opposer à la raison d’Etat, c’est encourager le terrorisme international. » Ces arguments, contre WikiLeaks, sont connus. « Internet, c’est la Stasi en pire. » (Catherine Nay, journaliste, dans son édito sur Europe 1) « Une société transparente est une société totalitaire. » (François Baroin, ministre du Budget) « La dictature de la transparence. » (Elisabeth Roudinesco, historienne, dans Libération) Ou encore celles de Koztoujours, sur Rue89, qui réunit tout les « webeux » dans un magma de guévaristes assangistes interneto-hippies trop abrutis par l’écran pour comprendre que le secret, ça sert la diplomatie et que la diplomatie, ça sert à éviter la guerre. Cette exaspération est compréhensible mais dangereuse : les dérives de WikiLeaks renforcent tous les partisans de l’Hadopi-Loppsi, du respect du secret défense, et de ceux qui veulent réguler Internet. Cette info seule aurait pu faire scandale.