Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of files from June 1996 to the present

Natsios Young Architects


9 January 2007. Related: http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak2.htm

Cc: wmreditor[a t]waynemadsenreport.com,
 funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.net
From: Julien Assange <me[a t]iq.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:07:48 -0600
To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>
Subject: [WL] Re: Wikileaks Suspects You

[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer
and plenty of backbone.]


John, can you xxxx  the reference to "IQ.ORG" in that document near  
"my daughters photo".



7 January 2007

A writes:

Just read the majority of the mailing list conversation and did not understand your, what I thought, sudden shift in direction. I imagine something that did not make its way onto the mailing list conversation prompted you to pull your support and then publish the emails? If so, can you fill us in?

Cryptome:

All the messages received were published. My objections had been building, shown in later messages, after initial support. The finally fed-up turnaround occurred with the publication today of the $5 million dollar by July fund-raising goal -- see messages at the tail-end. I called that -- along with a delay in offering a public discussion and critique forum and failure to provide a credible batch of leaked documents for public scrutiny -- a surefire indication of a scam. This is the exact technique used by snake oilers, pols and spies. Requests to Cryptome to keep stuff quiet are regular fare and they always get published. Next up, the names and affiliations of the perps if they don't reveal themselves in an open forum.


*** PGP Signature Status: unknown
*** Signer: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*** Signed: 10/3/2006 8:16:00 PM
*** Verified: 10/4/2006 8:32:09 AM
*** BEGIN PGP DECRYPTED/VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

Dear John,

You knew me under another name from cypherpunk days. I am involved
in a project that you may have feeling for. I will not mention its
name yet incase you feel yu are not able to be involved.

The project is a mass document leaking project that requires someone
with backbone to hold the .org domain registration. We would like
that person to be someone who is not privy to the location of the
master servers which are otherwise obscured by technical means.

We expect the domain to come under the usual political and legal
pressure. The policy for .org requires that registrants details
not be false or misleading. It would be an easy play to cancel the
domain unless someone were willing to stand up and claim to be the
registrant. This person does not need to claim any other knowledge
or involvement.

Will you be that person?

anon1984@fastmail.to

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
[Deleted by Cryptome]
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

*** END PGP DECRYPTED/VERIFIED MESSAGE ***


John Young agreed to do so by encrypted message, undecryptable by JY.
[A decrypted PGP message.] Dear J, The difficulties that confront a conspirator are infinite. many have been the conspiracies, but few have been successful; because he who conspires can not act alone, nor can he take a companion except from those whom he believes malcontent, and as soon as you have opened your mind to a malcontent you have given him the material with which to content himself. --Macchiavelli wikileaks.org, wikileaks.cn, wikileaks.info done Domain Name:WIKILEAKS.ORG (etc) Created On:04-Oct-2006 05:54:19 UTC Last Updated On:04-Oct-2006 06:45:38 UTC Expiration Date:04-Oct-2007 05:54:19 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Dynadot, LLC (R1266-LROR) Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:CP-10335 Registrant Name:John Young c/o Dynadot Privacy Registrant Street1:PO Box 1072 Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Belmont Registrant State/Province:CA Registrant Postal Code:94002 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.6505851961 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:privacy@dynadot.com The privacy forwarding service is part of the dynadot.com rego. Many thanks. Far from jya to be content :)
To: jya[a t]pipeline.com From: Subject: Welcome to list xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:48:40 -0800 (PST) Welcome to list xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Your subscription email is jya[a t]pipeline.com Your password : xxxxxxxxxxxxx This list is aimed at increasing water flow through the Santa Lucía River river system. Everything about this list: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Names and addresses, headers and redundant messages trimmed by Cryptome.] To: Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:50:32 +1100 From: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I think they're almost perfect and your efforts are prob. better  spent doing something new, rather than perfecting mr. mole. I'm not  sure how easy it is for you to modify. Are you doing all this freehand? Comments from others: germans seem to love the mole! I hadn't realized before and neither  do they, but smashing through walls with guard type figures above has  special resonance for them! not sure how that effect can be enhanced  further, without giving the game away, but it sure is interesting! Comments from an american [I am not making this up!]    Nice walrus!    Err, ok, nice seal. What's with the strange flippers?    Otter?    Oh, one of those strange marsupials? platypus? [they eventually got it. how's that for the american education system?]    - mole comes from dark into light but white around moles head?  perhaps needs shading?    - dudes above look like they can see mr mole and might get him,  but mr mole can't see them?    - are they coming down stairs to get mr mole?    - strongly prefer left hourclass wkileaks to hand form on right Comments from me:    - mr. mole's attitude is perfect    - logos look great, nothing to change. prefer hourglass  artistically to hand, but  white hands      cupping have historically found a lot of traction in people's  minds. possible confusion with global       warming - icecaps  melting, but can't think of anything that can be done about that  other than leading with appropriate context, which should work. it's  not as if we're sending out      random letters in the post.    - How about a "logo" sized mole with similar attitude? Be nice to  get his lovability onto       every page header, for example    - As a "backing" organization we're forming something like "centre  for open democracy" or       some such phrase of eminent and untouchable worth. any  suggestions on the phrase?       we can re-use one of the logos there, if mole-logo starts to  dominate    - 2d brickwork, 3d fallen bricks. difficult problem. maybe just  cut at the bottom of the wall, since      the image is pretty tall anyway? 2d wall, 3d mole is nice  stylistically    - perhaps some spreading cracks (not too gratuitous) in the  brickwork to further suggest      mr. moles impact on the rotten foundations of state power?    - perhaps top of moles head should overlay brickwork for increased  depth? not sure    - moles snout might look seal like, though never thought of this  till comment by americano.       some real moles have amazing star noses. we can't have our mr.  mole have       one of those, because it will de-humanize him. But iff you can do       it without dehumanizing him, some variant, like a powerful  glinting conical metal       drill nose might be cool    - perhaps angle black dudes eyes up a bit? or have them looking at  each other?    - be interesting to know how "leaks" and "mole" translate to other  languages    - we probably need fresh eyes now to see things objectively On 20.11.2006, at 18:08, Ani Lovins wrote: > Howdie, cowgirl! > > I take it I am just waiting now for any comments? > Yes, well as you said - both cute and with attitude, the mole shall  > be.
From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:28:09 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: Re: fresh meat > > OK, so here are some further modifications: > > First of all I changed the font on the 2 logos so whatever one you > decide to go with, I think this is better. ( I am guessing you'll > decide amongst yourselves what logo is appropriate) > > As to the mole: I disagree about several things. > > The dark figures are now looking beyond/ above the mole but they > should NOT look at one another, as I want no bonding or feeling of > togetherness about them. > Moles have noses like little hearts (which makes them so cute), whilst > seals dont really have a separate nose (it blends in with the skin). I > tried a quick change with a drill but I don't like it. > Also added a version with a darker mole bckground, but that takes away > from the picture, and I think your eye is no longer drawn to the > center. > Anyway, I will try to shrink the mole into some kind of logo sized > icon over the next few days. Bit busy, cause of Christmas coming up > but shall do my best. > > Hope  this is acceptable. > > Battle on! > a Begin forwarded message: From: Subject: Re: fresh meat OK, so here are some further modifications: First of all I changed the font on the 2 logos so whatever one you decide to go with, I think this is better. ( I am guessing you'll decide amongst yourselves what logo is appropriate) As to the mole: I disagree about several things. The dark figures are now looking beyond/ above the mole but they should NOT look at one another, as I want no bonding or feeling of togetherness about them. Moles have noses like little hearts (which makes them so cute), whilst seals dont really have a separate nose (it blends in with the skin). I tried a quick change with a drill but I don't like it. Also added a version with a darker mole bckground, but that takes away from the picture, and I think your eye is no longer drawn to the center. Anyway, I will try to shrink the mole into some kind of logo sized icon over the next few days. Bit busy, cause of Christmas coming up but shall do my best. Hope  this is acceptable. Battle on! a[][] [Image] [Image]
From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:28:09 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: Re: fresh meat > > OK, so here are some further modifications: > > First of all I changed the font on the 2 logos so whatever one you > decide to go with, I think this is better. ( I am guessing you'll > decide amongst yourselves what logo is appropriate) > > As to the mole: I disagree about several things. > > The dark figures are now looking beyond/ above the mole but they > should NOT look at one another, as I want no bonding or feeling of > togetherness about them. > Moles have noses like little hearts (which makes them so cute), whilst > seals dont really have a separate nose (it blends in with the skin). I > tried a quick change with a drill but I don't like it. > Also added a version with a darker mole bckground, but that takes away > from the picture, and I think your eye is no longer drawn to the > center. > Anyway, I will try to shrink the mole into some kind of logo sized > icon over the next few days. Bit busy, cause of Christmas coming up > but shall do my best. > > Hope  this is acceptable. > > Battle on! > a Begin forwarded message: From: Subject: Re: fresh meat OK, so here are some further modifications: First of all I changed the font on the 2 logos so whatever one you decide to go with, I think this is better. ( I am guessing you'll decide amongst yourselves what logo is appropriate) As to the mole: I disagree about several things. The dark figures are now looking beyond/ above the mole but they should NOT look at one another, as I want no bonding or feeling of togetherness about them. Moles have noses like little hearts (which makes them so cute), whilst seals dont really have a separate nose (it blends in with the skin). I tried a quick change with a drill but I don't like it. Also added a version with a darker mole bckground, but that takes away from the picture, and I think your eye is no longer drawn to the center. Anyway, I will try to shrink the mole into some kind of logo sized icon over the next few days. Bit busy, cause of Christmas coming up but shall do my best. Hope  this is acceptable. Battle on! a[] Content-Id: Content-Type: image/jpeg; x-unix-mode=0644; name=Logos new font.jpg Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Logos new font.jpg" [Image]
To: From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:42:37 +1100 This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone. Dear Mr. Ellsberg. We have followed with interest and delight your recent statements on document leaking. We have come to the conclusion that fomenting a world wide movement of mass leaking is the most cost effective political intervention available to us* We believe that injustice is answered by good governance and for there to be good governance there must be open governance. Governance by stealth is governance by conspiracy and fear. Fear, because without it, secrecy does not last for long. Retired generals and diplomats are vociferous, but those in active service hold their tune. Lord Action said, "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity". This degeneration comes about because when injustice is concealed, including plans for future injustice, it cannot be addressed. When governance is closed, man's eyes become cataracts. When governance is open, man can see and so act to move the world towards a more just state; for instance see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders which shows a striking correlation between press freedom and countries known for their quality of life. us*: some attributes may have been swapped to protect selected  identities,      no particular order.   1) Retired new york architect and notorious intelligence leak  facilitator   2) Euro cryptographer/programmer   3) Pacific physicist and illustrator   4) A pacific author and economic policy lecturer   5) Euro, Ex-Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer   6) Euro businessman and security specialist/activist   7) Author of software than runs 40% of the world's websites.   8) US pure mathematician with criminal law background   9) An infamous US ex-hacker   10) Pacific cryptographer/physicist and activist   11) US/euro cryptographer and activist/programmer   12) Pacific programmer   13) Pacific architect / foreign policy wonk New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us to not only encourage document leaking, but to facilitate it directly on a mass scale. We intend to place a new star in the political firmament of man. We are building an uncensorizable branch of Wikipedia for leaked documents and the civic institutions & social perceptions necessary to defend and promote it. We have received over 1 million documents from 13 countries, despite not having publicly launched yet! We have approached you now for two reasons. Firstly, we have crossed over from `prospective' to `projective'. The basic technology has been prototyped and we have a view as how we must proceed politically and legally. We need to move and inspire people, gain volunteers, funding, further set up the necessary political-legal defenses and deploy. Since you have thought about leaking more than anyone we know, we would like you on board. We'd like your advice and we'd like you to form part of our political armor. The more armor we have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age, history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get away with it. Secondly, we would like to award "The Ellsburg Prize for Courageous Action" and "The Ellsburg Prize for Courageous Action (USA)", for the two leaks submitted in the past year which most assist humanity. The regionalization of the second prize is to encourage patrons of similar awards in other countries. Although it is premature to go into detail, we have designed a scheme were this can be meaningfully awarded to anonymous leakers. We have been pledged substantial initial funding. Please tell us your thoughts. If you are happy, we will add you to our internal mailinglist, contacts, etc. Solidarity! WL.
To: From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:45:09 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I've registered us to present WL at the World Social Forum in Nairobi Jan 20-25th 2007! There should be 40-70 thousand people attending. Anyone else feel like coming to Africa? At the moment I've only registered us to present on the first day. However, we *can* register upto 5 presentations/workshops/roundtables etc. I've reserved a slot for a 200-300 audience, but it's really quite hard to guess how many people will turn up. There's 1000 other organizations jostling for time, but there are 40-70k people. Many people there must be net savy and even those that aren't can't but help hearing about the wikpedia.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to best stagger the presentation types (you'll have examine wsfprocess.net to see what's available). At the moment, my intent is to register a similar sized slot on each day, with a slightly different label, so as to appeal to different character types. The 7th edition of the World Social Forum brings the world to Africa as activists, social movements, networks, coalitions and other progressive forces from Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the Caribbean, North America, Europe and all corners of the African continent converge in Nairobi, Kenya for five days of cultural resistance and celebration. http://www.wsfprocess.net/ You'll need to create an account (easy) at wsfprocess in order to see us.
To: From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:05:06 -0500 (EST) [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Thanks for registering on Idealist! To complete the registration process please click in the following link: http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/MyIdealist/UserVerification/activate?email=funtimesahead%40lists.riseup.nettoken=f8bbd3190dd90c4174cc2c7d197d5219 Please remember that the verification link is valid for 7 days. If you have any questions about how to make the most of Idealist, please visit our Help Section at http://www.idealist.org/help Thanks, and all the best! The Idealist.org Team www.idealist.org
From: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:01:30 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I may donate XX.ORG [now worth $30k] for the WL civic institution if  someone can find a good acronym. Some good words: Quorum, Question, Quest, Quadrant, Quality, Qualification, Quantum,  Quotient, Query, InQuiry... Quasimodo [ok, q's are hard] I... Q... [french word order] I, International, Idea, Ideal, Identify, Integrity, Illusion, Image,  Imagination, Immortal, Immaterial, Impartial, Interesting,  Impassioned, Impending, Imperial, Impetuous, Institute, Important,  Impressive, Impunity, Incite, Inclusive, Incorrigible, Incredible,  Identical,  Infamous, Infinite, Inform, Ingenous, Initiating, Inner,  Institute, Insight, Intelligent, Intention,  Inter-, InterQuadrant,   InterQuarter, Intra-, Intro-, Intri-, Intuitive, Invariant, Innocent,  Invective, Investi-, Iconic, Independent, Irony, Island, In- I like:      Inter-Quadrant, Inter-Quarter, International Quorum/Question,  (center for public) inquiry, Infinite Quest. If there's a great character from history who's name begins with I,  one can form something like:            Isaac's Question/Quest ("Behold the fire and the wood, but  where is the lamb?" (Genesis 22: 7)) Which is lovely, since the open mind yearns to know what the question  is as soon it hears the name, and a biblical character  may give  christian sanctity (the answer to Isaaic is deeply moving. But the  source of the pathos is horror. If we were to front as a Ploughshares  style movement this might work). Isaiah has many questions, of which 6:10 seems to be the most  interesting:            Isaiah 6:10-11 "10 Make the heart of this people fat, and  make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they, seeing with  their eyes, and hearing with their ears, and understanding with their  heart, return, and be healed.'. Then said I: 'Lord, how long?' And He  answered: 'Until cities be waste without inhabitant, and houses  without man, and the land become utterly waste. Suggestions?
From: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:44:37 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Dear How have you been? How's xxxxxx and xxxxxx? From reading your blog, it seems like the course you are on is sustaining you and people you care about. Other than to catching up, would you like to join the initial  advisory board of an organization that's designing and deploying a censorship resistant version of wikipedia (mediawiki) for mass document leaking?  More about that later. I want to give you time to think about what it may mean (technically and politically) in the light of John Young's proven  ability to withstand censorship of some very important, but smaller scale leaks on Cryptome. 3 FBI meetings, but no raids. What it doesn't mean is lots of your  time. I think even your name would be a positive contribution. There's a recent picture of me and my daughter(!) on xxxxxxxxxxx, although the rest is mostly decontexualised. I see you've acquired an interest in motorcycles. Me too. [I liked the following part of my letter to you so much, I took the non personal bits and published them here xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- please excuse the style change!] It seems like everyone I meet plans to follow the young Che Guavara, and take off on their motorbike and adventure through the poverty and pleasurs of South and Central American, now that seduction of random latinos has been politically sanctified -- and who can blame them? Last year I rode my motorcycle from Ho Chi Min City (Saigon) to Hanoi, up the highway that borders the South China Sea. The road to Hanoi is a Vietnamese economic artery but is nonetheless dominated by potholes, thousands the size of bomb craters. There are constant reminders of "The American War" all over Vietnam, and perhaps this was one of them, but in a more indirect way. To a physicist a pothole has an interesting life. It starts out as a few loose stones. As wheels pass over, these stones grind together and against the under surface. Their edges are rounded off and the depression they are in also becomes rounder by their action. The stones become pestles to the hole's motor. Smaller stones and grit move between the spaces of larger stones and add to the grinding action. The hole enlarges, and deepens. Small stones are soon entirely worn away, but in the process liberate increasingly larger stones from the advancing edge of the hole. The increasing depth and surface capture more and more energy from passing wheels. The destruction of the road surface accelerates until the road is abandoned or the hole is filled. Road decay is, like a dental decay, a run away process. Utility rapidly diminishes and costs of repair accelerate, and just like teeth it is more efficient to fill a pothole as soon as it is noticed. But this measure of efficiency is not the metric of politics and it is a political feedback process that lays behind the filling in of potholes on almost every road on earth. That process is driven by the behavior of politically influential road users who are themselves motivated to action by psychologically negative encounters with potholes. When potholes are small, the resultant political pressures are not sufficient to overcome the forces of other interests groups who compete for labour and resources. Likewise, it is difficult to motivate people who have other passions and pains in their life to go to the dentist when their teeth do not ache. Both are caused by limitations in knowledge and its distillation: foresight. Why is this surprising? It is surprising because we are used to looking at government spending through the lens of economic utility; a lens which claims the political process as a derivative. This vision claims that political forces compete for access to the treasury to further their own utility. Hence, military intelligence and public health compete with road maintenance for funding and so should attempt to minimize the latter's drain on the treasury. But that drain is minimized by filling in potholes immediately! Foresight requires trustworthy information about the current state of the world, cognitive ability to draw predictive inferences and economic stability to give them a meaningful home. It's not only in Vietnam where secrecy, malfeasance and unequal access have eaten into the first requirement of foresight ("truth and lots of it"). Foresight can produce outcomes that leave all major interests groups better off. Likewise the lack of it, or doing the dumb thing, can harm almost everyone. Computer scientists have long had a great phrase for the dependency of foresight on trustworthy information; "garbage in, garbage out". In intelligence agency oversight we have "The Black Budget blues", but the phrase is probably most familiar to us as "The Fox News Effect". of the world, cognitive ability to draw predictive inferences and economic stability to give them a meaningful home. It's not only in Vietnam where secrecy, malfeasance and unequal access have eaten into the first requirement of foresight ("truth and lots of it"). Foresight can produce outcomes that leave all major interests groups better off. Likewise the lack of it, or doing the dumb thing, can harm almost everyone. Computer scientists have long had a great phrase for the dependency of foresight on trustworthy information; "garbage in, garbage out". In intelligence agency oversight we have "The Black Budget blues", but the phrase is probably most familiar to us as "The Fox News Effect". But back in the west and a land of cars, I noted that I knew only 10 people who had died; two murders, one suicide and six dead or severely brain damaged in motorcycle accidents. None from old age, which reflects my clans' longevity and wanderlust on one hand and fractiousness on the other. I stopped riding in the land of cars. Cheers,
From: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:31:08 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxx says yes! I wonder if that letter to Ellsberg has been routed to somewhere  other than the spam bucket. Can someone step forward to chase down  his postal address? Perhaps one of our bay area people? Any other suggestions? xxxxxx noted that Psyphon [poorly chosen name!],  a sort of poor mans tor/i2p lulled Soros and a bunch of others into  giving them US$3,000,000 for development. As some of you may know we  were recently leaked the entire Davos (World Economic Forum)  attendees contacts list, which has Soros, Sergi-Brin, any many others  on it. Presumably one of the reasons Psyphon was able to get these $ was its  affilication with some Canadian uni -- makes donors feel safe. We  have some people with affiliations, but that's not quite the same thing.
From: To: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:17:33 -0600 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] A simple googlestalking operation reveals his address to be: 90 Norwood Avenue Kensington CA 94707 USA
From: To: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:55:25 -0800 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] WL cryptographic certificate. Valid for two years. Note that this is for the top level domain only. Wild card certificats (*.wl.org) necessary to handle language groups as per wikipedia.org e.g en.wikipedia.org, de.wikepedia.org etc are quite expensive. Since we haven't even started on language regionalization yet, we'll leave that to later. CECERT will issue these certs for free, but it's not recognised in browsers yet. cecert certs will *probably* find their way into browsers in the next six months. John Young's address in NY given as the rego address. Hope you're still feeling brave, John :) -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- [Deleted by Cryptome.] --   WikiLeaks.Org   anon1984[a t]fastmail.to -- http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?
From: To: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:00:22 -0800 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hi xxxxxx, We haven't publically launched yet. WL has developed and integrated technology to foment untracable, unstoppable mass document leaking and discussion. Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in china, russia and central eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our technology is fast and usable by non-technical people. We have received over a million documents of varying quality. We plan to numerically eclipse the content the english wikipedia with leaked documents. We believe that the increasing familiarity with wikipedia.org provides a comfortable transition to those who wish to leak documents and comment on leaked documents. We feel that per hour spent this provides the greatest positive impact on the world and ourselves that is within our means to achieve. [...] PS. We can always use additional assistance, any ideas, let us know.     We are also looking for stable and trustworthy document drop-offs in     different countries. There are two types of drop-offs:    1) deniable    2) regular A deniable drop off will receive a leaked CD/DVD/thumbdrive with encrypted information to which they do not have the key. Their job is to simply upload this to WL. Since at no time do they have access to the information they can not later be held to be knowingly concerned with its contents. A regular drop off is willing to receive and upload both deniable media, regular digital media and printed documents. In the case of printed documents, they are expected to scan/ocr the documents or if there prove to be too many, forward some on to a regular drop off. Is riseup interested in being the location of one of the US drop-offs? We have one in NY, one in CA. Seattle and washington would probably make a full US complement. --   WikiLeaks.Org   anon1984[a t]fastmail.to -- http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different…
To: From: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:27:40 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] idealist.org is a volunteering intermediary. quite good -- does anyone feel like combing them for assistants? Thank you for getting back to me. Your application has been approved and is now active. You may access it by logging in at http://www.idealist.org. Email: Password: On your Control Panel, you will see a link to your organization, Instructions on managing your account may be found at http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/FAQ/QuestionViewer/default?category-eid=208-271&eid=655-219. If you wish to provide access to this account, either fully or partially, to other staff in your organization, please follow the instructions at http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/FAQ/QuestionViewer/default?category-eid=210-74&eid=656-252 Best, Chelsea Idealist User Support Staff Action Without Borders http://www.idealist.org
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:34:26 -0500 To: From: Michael Ellsberg <ellsbergpress[a t]gmail.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Subscription Confirmation Before we add you to our mailing list, we would like to confirm your subscription. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your subscription will be activated immediately upon clicking the above link. This double opt-in method ensures that all subscribers on our list do indeed want to receive our newsletters and that no one can add your email address to a list without your consent. Thank you for your assistance! This message was sent from Michael Ellsberg to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It was sent from: Michael Ellsberg, 90 Norwood Ave., Kensington, CA 94707. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.
From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:43:24 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxx, I notice ellsberg also uses ellsbergd[a t]cs.com [compuserve]
From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:07:01 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx [Telephone number deleted by Cryptome.]
From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:44:10 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxx/xxx   'uncensorizable' should probably be 'uncensorable'.
From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:05:34 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I've sent a version of xxxxxxxxxx's Ellsberg letter to John Gilmore. Begin forwarded message: > From: > Date: 16 December 2006 19:00:14 GMT+11:00 > To: gnu[a t]eff.org, gnu[a t]toad.com > Subject: document leaking > > Dear J, > > Are you interested in helping us build/support/get support for  > this: www.wikileaks.org > > We have come to the conclusion that fomenting a world wide movement of > mass leaking is the most cost effective political intervention > available to us*. We believe that injustice is answered by good > governance and for there to be good governance there must be open > governance. Governance by stealth is governance by conspiracy and > fear. Fear, because without it, secrecy does not last for long. > Retired generals and diplomats are vociferous, but those in active > service hold their tune. > > Lord Action said, "Everything secret degenerates, even the > administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it > can bear discussion and publicity". > > This degeneration comes about because when injustice is concealed, > including plans for future injustice, it cannot be addressed. When > governance is closed, man's eyes become cataracts. When governance is > open, man can see and so act to move the world towards a more just > state; for instance see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders which shows a > striking correlation between press freedom and countries known for > their quality of life. > > us*: some attributes may have been swapped to protect selected  > identities, > no particular order. > > 1) Retired new york architect and notorious intelligence leak  > facilitator > 2) Euro cryptographer/programmer > 3) Pacific physicist and illustrator > 4) A pacific author and economic policy lecturer > 5) Euro, Ex-Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer > 6) Euro businessman and security specialist/activist > 7) Author of software than runs 40% of the world's websites. > 8) US pure mathematician with criminal law background > 9) An infamous US ex-hacker > 10) Pacific cryptographer/physicist and activist > 11) US/euro cryptographer and activist/programmer > 12) Pacific programmer > 13) Pacific architect / foreign policy wonk > > New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us to not only encourage > document leaking, but to facilitate it directly on a mass scale. We > intend to place a new star in the political firmament of man. > > We are building an uncensorable branch of Wikipedia for leaked > documents and the civic institutions & social perceptions necessary to > defend and promote it. We have received over 1 million documents from > 13 countries, despite not having publicly launched yet! > > We have approached you now for two reasons. > > Firstly, we have crossed over from `prospective' to `projective'. The > basic technology has been prototyped and we have a view as how we must > proceed politically and legally. We need to move and inspire people, > gain volunteers, funding, further set up the necessary political-legal > defenses and deploy. Since you have created more successful  > technical-political > projects than anyone else we know of in the US, we would like you  > on board. We'd like > your advice and we'd like you to form part of our political armor.  > The more armor we > have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age, > history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get > away with it. > > We state here our clear, bold goal. We will provide a catalyst  > which will > bring down government through stealth everywhere, not least that of  > the Bushists. > > What do you say? >
From: To: Date: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Just ran into this guy at bar camp. http://www.rumor-mill.org/ dzetland[a t]gmail.com -- xxxxxxxx
From: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:21:22 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Well, other than the V theme, what's the low down xxxxxxxxx? ppt is causing me grief. On 18.12.2006, at 08:02, xxxxxxxxx wrote: http://www.rumor-mill.org
From: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:35:54 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] This is great. I hang my head in shame for ever thinking you were not  going to write it. I have to go out, but I wanted to give you my (literally!) 5 minute  take so you have something to work with. I have only skimmed the  document. The time of year has some implications for political  publishing i.e it has to be quite soon or we need to wait till, say  3rd of jan when there's a trade off between types of activity [long  articles may be better received in the holidays once social events  are over]. As usual with most people who write, the evenness of your tone and  style, and consequent readability improves as the document goes  along. but the first few paragraphs are the most important because  people won't read the rest unless they get hooked by them. so that's  what I'll comment on. Keep in mind that my comments may be irrelevant  since I have only read a small part. 1. remove most obscure acronyms from the first few paragraphs and try  to reduce them using grammar in the subsequent few. maths people are  good at holding definitions, others not so, but for both types linear  reading is required; this can't be assumed on the internet. I *know*  you don't want to use 'government' since it grants a right to  authority which frequently does not exist. 2. place some questions and violent acts into the readers mind  quickly so that they want to resolve them. Leak reads like a script  for what happened -- good plan or good post-facto forgery? Some  readers are interested in that country. but many in China. Why was it  being passed off to C in Oct (broaden political relevance, add chrono  relevance)? Arms? C oil company (many interested in oil)? six killed  in Sept assassination attempt on pres -- any connection? (make  violence / chrono relevant). Forged? It seems likely that this  document is legitimate, but we don't have to tell the reader that  straight away, and notice that the 3rd jpg has been edited. If  forged, why, and why pass it off now (Oct)? Probably worth putting in  a call to what remains of the somali govt and asking where they got  it [do they claim leaked, or seized in military operation?]. Do we  not want to reveal that the S government has it? I think to be true  to the truth we have to. So why haven't they told the world? Have  they? Why hasn't the world followed up? Did no one have time to  understand it/somalia (quite possible)? Or did no one trust that it  wasn't faked? Faking it seems a bit long temr and esoteric for the  somalis govt, who fighting for their immediate survival, but assume  it is a fake, then who's the master?  CIA? But that's it's influence  on the US seems to be where it would be the most useful. But not now.  A year ago; so why is it being passed off now? Who's "Captain WELI",  the translator? We assume someone in the somali military, not loyal  to UIT.
From: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:50:40 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] just noticed the amazing events that are happening on the ground. is  that hitting the news wires? -- if so we must act quickly. most  importantly we must verify the integrity of that translation. first  quote I've found was $300 for 1,000 words. cruising some irc channels  that operate in that language may suffice. anyone have somali  friends? in particular we can't make claims about words like  'criminal' without knowing the translation has integrity. i *assume*  it has general integrity since that' s something that's easy to  check, but there's always give for word bias in translation other notes: emotive language (including amplifiers, like 'massive') that maybe  justified, but not justified immediately preceeding text should go.  The strongest position is say "murderous" when the facts provide  carte blanche and otherwise keep quiet. 'we' should be 'I', unless you're referring to yourself and the  reader 'we can see that'. Even then it's better style to avoid those  constructs (seductively easy way of roping the reader into your  argument, I know). give colorful bio of the author early -- easy to do, if you've looked  at his wiki page -- there he is, flame on his chin, holy book in his  hand and anti-aircraft cannon between his legs. this story is more  powerful in a publishing venue which takes photos. those scanned  jpgs, together with recent news and a photo of the author are a  powerful combination!
From: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:43:53 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Something worth noting about the unusual relative power of community  building islamist movements when operating against well funded US led  democracy wagons; the promise of better shopping does not move the  heart to great acts of love or sacrifice. "Democracy" is a difficult  abstraction that is easily abused (try drawing it). It is a means,  not an end. There's no instinct or desire for democracy. Consider the  US Declaration of Independence (1776), a document which is the  distillation of psychological forces that drove men to civil war and  kept them there. What are those forces? ...God.. Creator.. Men are created equal... Life, Liberty,... pursuit  of Happiness.. Safety and Happiness... [followed by 26(!) paragraphs  of hatred for the abuses of King George]. In other words, religious feeling (x2), equality, life, liberty,  happiness (x2),  safety and above all, an extreme hatred for the  brutal acts, preferment, and corruption of foreign influenced or  controlled government. Not once does "democracy" or  "shopping" appear. Doesn't bode well for the Iraqi provisional authority -- at least the  British spoke the same language.
From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:32:09 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/6/2/1/n1208580.htm
From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:57:37 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] [xxxxxxxxxxx has an message size limit of 300k, my earlier post  didn't go through, so I've split it up into three parts] Given the recent dramatic turn of events in somalia, we have decided  to rush forward with the first ``Bourbaki'' article based on a Somali  diplomatic government leak (seized document?) handed over to the  chinese in mid October (and then submitted to us). Nobody, amazingly  writing it in under a day. [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/som.zip
From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:46:25 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hi all, Can everyone on this list who has functional access to PGP [ i.e will  not cause days of delay to encrypt/decrypt a message]  please send  their public keys to this list? I'd like to keep our discussions on  the path of least resistance and this this generally means, open and  transparent, but there some matters we need to address soon where  openness is better enabled through secrecy; we owe our sources, even  through we keep no logs or other information that might identify  them, to exercise mindful diligence (not paranoia) in response to  their courage. We're on an exponential; we have no forces working against us yet,  but there will many in a few months and these early discussions may  take on an unexpected poignancy. xxxxxxxxxxxx.
From: To: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:42:22 +1100 Subject: [WL] somali bourbaki article [.doc] [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] [xxxxxxxxxxx has an message size limit of 300k, my earlier post  didn't go through, so I've split it up into three parts] [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia.doc
To: From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:43:01 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia.pdf
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:26:14 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] It would be prudent to attempt to verify that the Somali document is not a forgery. The last threat about shooting anybody who reveals the document smells like a smear of the author. The spooks forge such documents as a matter of regular tradecraft, and leaks of them are frequently through an alleged third party. The more the reputation of a target would be damaged by a "leak," greater the likelihood of a forgery. Verification, or the best that can done close to it, is probably a basic requirement of this list. Or a disclaimer that no verification has been done. It should not be long before deliberate leaks start to appear here, as they do around nearly all means of distributing information. Contaminating these means is the nature of those who prowl for ways to insert lies and duplicity into the search for truth and reliability. This is not to suggest leaks are not to be trusted, just not blindly so, for they are now standard tools for lying, smearing and stinging by governments, corporations, persons of all demonics.
From: Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:58:25 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] The situation in Somalia is still very tense. Political map to understand what follows: http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/9/99/Somali_land_2006_12_02.png The authenticity of the Islamic Courts' document is difficult and  extremely interesting. There are strong arguments in both directions  and it is conceivable that the middle position of a document that's  slightly altered is also correct. If this document is what it claims to be, the chance of ICU  verification seems remote. Like many conjectures it is falsifyable,  but not provable. Further, there doesn't seem to be a direct way to  contact the ICU.   Contact (for me) would require hopping through  Somali refugee relationships. Looking instead to falsify the  translation, I presented the first half page to a Somali reader (from  Somaliland), but as soon as they saw "secret decision of islamic  court", their heart grew fearful and their hand's restless enough to  return it. Looking at motivation: There are only two items in the document damaging to the Islamic  Courts Union, of these, only the first is substantive. The ICU denies expansionist ambitions on the north of Somlia  (Puntland and Somaliland) -- though these ambitions are now clear to  everyone, back before the ICU took Mogadishu, the perception was  different. Putland claims to be an autonomous region, while Somaliland [http:// www.somaliland.gov/], declared independence (unrecognised) in 1991  and subsequently mandated by referendum in 2001. The UN/US/Ethiopian  backed government -- the Transitional National Assembly (TNA), is  opposed to Somaliland, despite its success as an independent Kurdish- style democracy over 15 years.      Somalia's new transitional government is staunchly opposed to  the referendum. Its acting prime minister, Osman Jama Ali, described  it on Wednesday as "a ploy to divide Somalia by the help of  unfriendly foreign countries and opportunist individuals". [http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1361394.st] We can see what must of been the threat structure last year, prior to  the ICU capturing the capital  [in order, merging Ethopia into the TNA] TNA: ICU, Somaliland, Puntland ICU: TNA, Puntland Somaliland: TNA, Puntland Putland: TNA, ICU, Somaliland So Somalia land and the ICU are natural allies and the ICU and  Puntland are uneasy truce partners. That's essentially how things  were last year. Since the ICU captured the capital, Mogadishu, perceptions and  relationships have shifted: TNA: ICU, omaliland, Puntland ICU: TNA, Puntland, Somaliland Somalialand: ICU, TNA, Puntland Puntland: ICU, TNA, Somaliland The document claims the imprimatur "Islamic Republic of Somalia". The  ICU never publically refers to itself using these words and nor does  the press -- to do so would be to STAKE AN ISLAMIST CLAIM ON ALL OF  SOMALIA, including Puntland and Somalialand. There are 4 pages of google references to "Islamic Republic of  Somalia" (the Somali translation is a google whack), and most are of  this form (June 2006):      "The former head of the JIC, Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, will be the   chairman of the council's executive committee, which will be in   charge of day-to-day running of the Islamic courts," an Islamist  official said.      "This is one step short of calling for the official  establishment of the Islamic Republic of Somalia," said Ahmed Hassan,  a Somali democracy advocate.  [http://mwcnews.net/content/view/ 7835/207/] Or this, also from June 2006:      From the ashes will rise the Islamic Republic of Somalia modeled  much like Iran where we are in a developing highly intelligent nation  ran by Islamic Law. [http://www.esai.org/myESAi/viewtopic.php? t=8964&sid=cd700d7cd0909f210b92841ab3dab9c3] Behold the hidden darwiish of espionage -- not the content, it's the  imprimatur itself. When we look at the remaining references to "Islamic Republic of  Somalia", we hear half whispers; users registering themselves,  claiming to be from that invisible republic: [http:// www.somalilife.com/member-viewprofile-36588.html] and the occasional  Somali refugee using it informally to refer to UIC controlled areas.  But examine this quote from July, not picked up by other wire  services. Is it a slip of Aweys' tongue or the reporter's pen?      The local Shabelle media group quoted on Monday the Islamists'  hardline leader, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, as saying bin Laden's  comments had "nothing to do" with his movement. "It's nothing more  than a friendly call because Osama shares the pain with the Islamic  republic of Somalia," he added. [http://www.hananews.org/ WholeArticle.asp?artId=6158] The most we can say is that the imprimatur, however it got to be that  way, is sufficient motivation for TNA to spread it around.                                                                     ---- Now lets look at John Young's smeary "Care has to be maintained all  along to avoid leaking of this information. Whosoever leaks this  information and is found guilty should be shot.".  It enters the mind  like a scripted dramatic effect. But our supposed author, Aweys, is  all about dramatic effect and dramatic affect! His other statements  often carry this flourish. Now consider the last four words; "and is  found guilty" -- an unusual thing for a forger who wished to  discredit Aweys to say, but something Aweys, not as a general, but as  a judge and scholar of islamic law, would find comfortable.                                                                     ---- Forensic attack. I had assumed that the English translation was produced by the TNA.  Looking at the binary strings in the English ".doc" translation (word  users can try "show document info"), we see: ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA Captain Weli Normal Microsoft Office Word Department of State Microsoft Office Word MSWordDoc Word.Document.8 The salient features are "Islamic Republic of Somalia", "Captain  Weli" and "Department of State".  "Department of State" is  cartoonish, but all over the world, the powerless ape the powerful.  Yet some Word meta-information is easier to change than others -- was  the version of Word use to prepare this document licensed to a  different DEPARTMENT OF STATE? Would the UIC bother filling out  organization fields on its Windows installations? Was another  country's Department of State careless in its forgery? The US  supports the TNA. It's difficult to imagine the TNA, which is  fighting for its very existence, producing such a forgery entirely on  their own. The translation, together with the jpg, was deliberately passed onto  the Chinese at diplomatic level in mid October, BY THE TNA. If the document is not a forgery, the TNA must have been leaked or  captured the paper document or the jpegs AND an English translation  by the UIC (in electronic form) or... THE LEAKER IS THE TRANSLATOR IS  CAPTAIN WELI. It is possible that both documents were flowing through the UIC  electronically. Only 7.6 million, or about 50% of Somalia speaks the  Somali language. In the south, where the UIC draws its support, there  are a number of other language groupings [http://www.ethnologue.com/ show_country.asp?name=SO] the most popular of which is Maay [approx.  1 million speakers]. Is English used as the second language for  orders flowing through the UIC from Aweys? Islamic Judges can read  Arabic. Why wasn't the translation into Arabic? Or was it translated  into a number of languages in the style of the European parliament?  Are UIC regions networked enough for electronic distribution of Aweys  orders? If the Aweys leak is a forgery, then taking the extra effort to make  the electronic translation to English appear to originate with the  UIC is an act of the highest perceptual idiocy or very creative  reverse psychology. Both nice phrases and both in full flower down  Langley way.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:12:20 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] This is a good analysis and suggests how to respond to doubts about a document, or for that matter, for a document for which there are no immediate doubts but probably should be questioned as a good practice for a leak-promoting source like this: skepticism as a premise of providing leaked documents. The MSM all too often substitute a prefabricated authority for skepticism of what it publishes. Whereas scholarly work, the best of it, presents counterarguments as part of a presentation, on the assumption that discourse is superior to pontification, or worse, infalliability. Leaks should be doubted and doubts answered by leakers or those who distribute the leakables. An iron-clad leak is a phony or a lie. It does require more work to perform an exegesis of a leaked document weighing the pros and cons, but that is what it takes to avoid the trap of vainglorious pride in being a leaker and the subsequent lure of leaking crap to remain in the spotlight -- the politician's disease. Or the other trap is pretending authority where it is not deserved, indeed, where reputation and reliability are marketed as come-ons, thus the celebrated MSM and its bastard children, the nameish blogs seen as sidebars to other nameish blogs, self-referencing one another into triviality. The spooks treat forging and forgeries as high art, producing and challenging, some claim there is no higher purpose of the spies than to masterfully forge and to undo a master forgery. Takes one to know one. The same is true of leakers: there is hardly a better means to get a false and/or true story into the public domain, or better, into the most secret caverns of suspicious noggins like that of James Jesus Angleton and his ilk among the Soviets, Israelis, Brits, and so on. Spooks practice this on each other, in training and in practice. The saying is that analysts rule for their unquenchable disbelief, and nothing that goes up the chain of command without powerful dissent is believable, so biased are promoters that they are unable to tell the full story, that is, preach. Thanks for moving in the rightly dubitable direction.
From: Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:15:45 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: From: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:32:45 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] A bit of affectionate rototilling: 1. slickify occasional wording, especially in the first few pages 2. following Skunk, cut words etc for size and style 3. cut/town down what could be painted as left wing bias using  rhetorical tricks"It is" -> "Critics say" etc 4. tone down criticisms over shooting leakers. Shooting people who  leak war cabinet documents is normal. Even the rosenbergs got it in  the neck in peace time. If it's fake it's there to encourage  distribution via the dramatic violation of spreading the damn thing,  which btw, is working a treat. let me know if you disagree with this. 5. tone down some implicit value judgements which I suspect are  actually cultural assumptions. 6. delete some things which I thought were true, but did not  represent it statistically, since some things when mentioned are  "instant moral death sentences" to the reader. e.g as soon as you  know a man's sheets have seen goat fur, even if it was 20 years ago,  this will be the lens through which you see his every action 7. fix up a problem with the document analysis ("Islamic Republic of  Somalia") 8. add explicit WL reference. Feels nice.  A perhaps too long in the middle, but the writing is  strong and I couldn't see any easy place to cut it. I'm sure I've  dropped some words as seems to be my habbit. Anyone see them? Not changed, but needs to be: Today/yesterday/recently/this week etc references have to go. We can  only ref "Tuesday" etc if we know it's going to be published that  same week, but "Today/Yesterday", is very unlikely without prior  arrangement. Also relative dates make updating / republishing painful. Last some parts [esp, last] need updating to reflect the Ethiopian  air attacks. While final paragraphs are not as important as initial paragraphs,  they rank#2. Haven't done much with these as I assume xxxxxx will update. Otherwise it's ready to roll! Hope you're happy with that xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To: From: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:33:21 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v3.doc
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:04:09 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Quite an excellent report, much superior to what appears in the MSM. More thoughtful about the first and continuing casualties of war, diplomacy and commercial journalism: the truth about and critical examination of information sources. Where, when and how is it to be made public along with the original document? While perhaps implicit, there could be an invitation for critical comment by readers to continue the discourse. And if so, to what or whom are comments to be sent?
From: Subject: Re: [WL] new somali article(v3) more on Bourbaki Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:55:06 +1100 To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> John, you set an example to us humble rabble and lift our spirits  with your gentile tidings. Keep up our hopes, our e-spirit de corpuscular; draw forth our anger,  our courage -- and our fire -- to lick at the damp paper of  uncivilization until it catches and our hearts are warmed by the  conflagration of basement mendacities the world over. Let our smiles  be woken by flowers of openness pushing through the ash from below. We are compelled to act,  as we are best able, for a man who  witnesses injustice but does not act, becomes a party to a cascade of  injustice, via the iterative diminution and pacification of his  character. It is our plan to foment political and financial support for WL. To  do that we need a commanding voice. Everywhere we see professional sayers and professional knowers, but  the demands of each mean little intersection and the world finds  itself with brainless words and wordless brains. By uniting a handful  of knowers together in harmony we can project our voice without  devoting our minds to the preferments and petty intrigues of moguls.  We have the collective sources, personalities and learning to be, or  rather, appear to be, the reclusive ubermench of the 4th estate. We  will take the non-linear blessing such a position affords and apply  it to our great task of DIY universal open governance. Our rules follow that of the French Bourbaki who through their  allonym set the mathematical world to right in the first half of the  20th C with internal agreement by exhaustion and the purification  inherit in non-attribution of ego. Ben likes to quotes Woodruff thus  "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he  doesn't mind who gets the credit." For the Somali document I am not sure of the venue. I've had a couple  of things published in Counterpunch recently, so have an in with  Cockburn and the content and style is an easy fit. Suelette and I  have had junk published in the London Independent, Age, SMH,  Australian etc, but this article is a bone too big for the dailies to  chew, and although it might be happy with fragments, my feeling is it  will pick them from the Counterpunch midden without our efforts. My  only hesitation vis-a-vis Counterpunch is the readership, which  though large, tends to pal up on one pew and sometimes even sings and  claps. We're open to other venue suggestions, and very happy to take  edits, since your are still a great stylist. When WL is deployed, feedback will be, like Wikipedia, an act of  creation and  correction; the Aweys document and those like it will  eventually  face one hundred thousand incensed Somali refugees, blade  and keyboard in hand, cutting, cutting, cutting apart its pages until  all is dancing confetti and the truth. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. On 25 Dec 2006, at 17:04, John Young wrote: > Quite an excellent report, much superior to what appears in the  > MSM. More > thoughtful about the first and continuing casualties of war,  > diplomacy and > commercial journalism: the truth about and critical examination of > information > sources. > > Where, when and how is it to be made public along with the original > document? > > While perhaps implicit, there could be an invitation for critical  > comment by > readers to continue the discourse. And if so, to what or whom are  > comments > to be sent?
From: To: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 08:24:05 -0600 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Your edits are great. Good to get more than one set of hands on the document, to maximise rhetorical and stylistic flourishes. With regard to the document analysis, I take it you discovered the same thing I did: the "Islamic Republic of Somalia" is the *title* of the document, not its location, and word automatically titles the document by its first line. Need to adjust for this. Venues: In addition to counterpunch, the following crossed my mind, though I haven't really thought them through. The Nation? Monthly Review? ZNet? Of these, the first two would be great to get into, and ZNet might be good regardless of where else we go... their massive and useful database of essays would be great to be in, and a contribution to understanding amongst the community there. The longer we leave it, the more updating we have to do, so I propose getting it out sooner rather than later. Remaining edits: I'll see what I can do. If somebody else can get in and do them first, go right ahead. There's not much to do now.
From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 02:28:36 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] > With regard to the document analysis, I take it you discovered the  same thing I > did: the "Islamic Republic of Somalia" is the *title*  of the document, not its   location, and word automatically titles  the document by its first line. Need to >adjust for this. No! I don't use Word. This very important observation of yours  naturalizes the translation provenance and a couple of my edits need  be reversed in light of it. Eg I XXXX'd out Weli's name just in case  he was the leaker, but now we can reveal it. It also makes the "State  Department" label more interesting and confirms that the TFG's angle  on the document is what we thought i.e focus on the appellation. The  US and others are paranoid about Iranification so we can see the  motivation for spreading it outside Somalia. I think this slightly  increases the chance that its a forgery, as the reverse psychology  needed to have the UIC undertaking the english translation was too  clever by half. We can now cut out the discussion as to the  translation origin. Venues: In addition to counterpunch, the following crossed my mind,  though I haven't really thought them through. The Nation? Monthly  Review? ZNet? Of these, the first two would be great to get into, and  ZNet might be good regardless of where else we go... their massive  and useful database of essays would be great to be in, and a  contribution to understanding amongst the community there. The monthlies tend to have long lead times which may not suit us, but  they're worth hitting. Does anyone have contacts there? We need a  mini bio (pick truths from all of us) for bourbaki and a less obvious  name though "Jack Bourbaki" sure  is kind to the tongue. I have a  washington voice mail service I'll set up with the identity.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 11:57:05 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Has the Word doc been subjected to the program which reveals hidden revisions and their authors? I don't have it but Richard Smith says he's written a program to show the concealed revisions: http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm The original PDF might also reveal hidden information with a bit of probing. Recall that NSA and others now warn about sanitizing Word to PDF conversions: http://www.nsa.gov/snac/vtechrep/I333-TR-015R-2005.PDF Beware of attributions like Department of State, they regularly pop up along with TLA nyms. Even idiotic spammers use them. None of this should hold up publication for that will set in motion a slew of tests from a wide variety of skeptics eager to debunk. The first debunkers will probably be the media approached to lend credibility and provide exposure. They, rather their lawyers, are ever eager to avoid liability and, worse, loss of reputation marketability. The fret a lot about being stung by "leaks," black and white. The analysis could bring them around, but it also conveys suspicion of authenticity. Too much caution, though, sharply limits what gets published. This forum got to face the fact it will be treated with caution until a strong bonafide is established, maybe requiring a ride on the back of a gold plated reputation, but that's might hard to come by. Still, all the gold-plates once were once fools gold and rejected by the old reputables, then wham, a supernova of expose brought an invite into the comfy club. Most exposers never make it, and most leakers don't get the attention they have dreamed of. I think the Net offers opportunities the MSM just won't provide until the gauntlet is run.
From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:44:15 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] The additional metadata: $ catdoc -v Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc File Info block version 193 Found at file offset 128 (hex 80) Written by product version 24689 Language 1033 This is document (DOC) file File uses extended character set File created on Windows Using default character set Textstart = 1536 (hex 600) Textlen =   5908 (hex 1714) No surprises there. Language 1033 is english. Can't seem to find a  ref to product version 24689. Might be interesting if that was US  govt or African (font reasons) MS issue. $ wvSummary Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc Metadata for Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc:          Editing Duration = 2009-04-22T19:33:48Z          msole:codepage = 936          Generator = "Microsoft Office Word"          Last Modified = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z          Creator = "Captain Weli"          Revision = "2"          Number of Pages = 1          Number of Words = 782          Title = "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA"          Created = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z          Subject = ""          Template = "Normal"          Keywords = ""          Description = ""          Number of Characters = 4462          Security Level = 4462          Last Saved by = "hi"          msole:codepage = 936          Number of Lines = 37          Number of Paragraphs = 10          Unknown1 = 5234          Company = "Department of State"          Scale = FALSE          Links Dirty = FALSE          Unknown3 = FALSE          Unknown6 = FALSE          Unknown7 = 726502 Salient points here; The last modification date is Oct 03, though it  is the second save. This is only Creation date == last modified. I'm  not sure what that implies; perhaps the document was copied to  another computer for the second edit. Can't find an easy ref to  security level 4462. The account name, 'hi' almost seems intended for  us! Timeline: Sep 18 Attempted Assassination of President Abdullahi Yusuf in  Baidoa. Brother and 5 guard killed. Oct 03 Final edits to Aweys english translation Oct 14ish Document sent to Chinese Nov 02 President Yusef Arrives in Beijing Nov 04 Forty eight African countries that have diplomatic relations  with China participate in a two-day summit.
Subject: metadata dump for somali .doc and timeline analysis [chinese motivation] Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:44:15 +1100 To: The additional metadata: $ catdoc -v Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc File Info block version 193 Found at file offset 128 (hex 80) Written by product version 24689 Language 1033 This is document (DOC) file File uses extended character set File created on Windows Using default character set Textstart = 1536 (hex 600) Textlen =   5908 (hex 1714) No surprises there. Language 1033 is english. Can't seem to find a  ref to product version 24689. Might be interesting if that was US  govt or African (font reasons) MS issue. $ wvSummary Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc Metadata for Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc:          Editing Duration = 2009-04-22T19:33:48Z          msole:codepage = 936          Generator = "Microsoft Office Word"          Last Modified = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z          Creator = "Captain Weli"          Revision = "2"          Number of Pages = 1          Number of Words = 782          Title = "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA"          Created = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z          Subject = ""          Template = "Normal"          Keywords = ""          Description = ""          Number of Characters = 4462          Security Level = 4462          Last Saved by = "hi"          msole:codepage = 936          Number of Lines = 37          Number of Paragraphs = 10          Unknown1 = 5234          Company = "Department of State"          Scale = FALSE          Links Dirty = FALSE          Unknown3 = FALSE          Unknown6 = FALSE          Unknown7 = 726502 Salient points here; The last modification date is Oct 03, though it  is the second save. This is only Creation date == last modified. I'm  not sure what that implies; perhaps the document was copied to  another computer for the second edit. Can't find an easy ref to  security level 4462. The account name, 'hi' almost seems intended for  us! Timeline: Sep 18 Attempted Assassination of President Abdullahi Yusuf in  Baidoa. Brother and 5 guard killed. Oct 03 Final edits to Aweys english translation Oct 14ish Document sent to Chinese Nov 02 President Yusef Arrives in Beijing Nov 04 Forty eight African countries that have diplomatic relations  with China participate in a two-day summit.
To: From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:00:06 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Cyberspace reflections of political realities: Official Somali gov  web-site: http://somalia-gov.info Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the  site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. Apache/1.3.36 Server at www.somali-gov.info Port 80
To: From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:49:10 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Based on the ministers etc, it looks like an oil for arms swap.  [leaked via chinese intercept of Somali Govt communications]. trusted  source. Subject: The Great China Project From: Faisal Ahmed Yusuf Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:57:45 +0400 Dear Amb. Mohamed Awil and Abdirahman Haji; YE, first of all I am very sorry about the sad happening at our  Embassy premises and what the mindless people did to our national  property. Also, this is to thank you for the continuous support and  cooperation provided to us, in order to make this mission a  successful one. Brothers, as I was just talking to brother Syed Ali and Abdirahman,  and having obtained now the consent, elderly blessing and directives  of HE, the President, thanks to Syed Ali for that, it is about time  to do the last few actions requested by CHEC. The Preliminary delegate coming to Beijing for the meeting consist of: Ministers: 1-Hon. Said Hassan Shire, Minister of Rebuilding and Resettlement.  (Invitation letters, tickets, and hotel arranged already). 2-Hon. Abudlahi Yusuf Harare, Minister of Petroleum. (Please correct  the name for me if Harare is just nickname and not the official third  name) Brothers, as CHEC requested, we need to officially request a meeting  between our above mentioned ministers and: 1-With the Chinese Minister/Ministry of Foreign Affairs  (international Cooperation liaison office) 2-With the Chinese Minister/Ministry of Commerce. 3-With the Governor of Export and Import Bank. As indicated by the CHEC, a sample draft letter to each of the above  dignitaries could be as attached (It is just a sample and you may  amend it as deemed fit), as CHEC indicated, the president office  could send this to the Chinese embassy at Nairobi, Kenya, while Amb.  Mohd Awil could send the same directly to the Chinese ministries.  Grateful if you could both make the request on urgent basis, please. CHEC, believes we should send via to two channels at the same time,  please. YE, additionally, brothers there are some of us who are coming there  to Beijing to lobby for the project, in a very SILENT manner we will  be working from the background and support the Ministers, President  delegates, Embassy so that the mission ends with the anticipated  successes. Sinosom delegates: 1-Mr. Isse Haji Farah 2-Mr. Kadir Abdulrahman Mohamud 3-Mrs. Mariam Abdulahi Yusuf 4-Mr. Feysal Ahmed Yusuf. With lots of anticipation and forward looking, this is put for your  kind cooperation and immediate action, please. Best of Regards; Faisal Hawar.
From: Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:45:09 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our  character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose  all ability to defend ourselves and those we love. In a modern  economy it is impossible to seal oneself off from injustice. If we have brains or courage, then we are blessed and called on not  to frit these qualities away, standing agape at the ideas of others,  winning pissing contests, improving the efficiencies of the  neocorporate state, or immersing ourselves in obscuranta, but rather  to prove the vigor of our talents against the strongest opponents of  love we can find. If we can only live once, then let it be a daring adventure that  draws on all our powers. Let it be with similar types whos hearts and  heads we may be proud of. Let our grandchildren delight to find the  start of our stories in their ears but the endings all around in  their wandering eyes. xxxxxxxx
To: From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:46:20 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: > From: wl-person > Date: 28. Dezember 2006 > To: > Subject: Re: somalia v4 > > Please find attached two files.  The first is a proofed version  > with errors corrected only where I was absolutely certain what the  > changes should be (they are mostly typographical); you should be  > able to use your software to compare this with the one sent to me.   > The second file is a list of concerns about which I wasn't  > absolutely certain what the changes ought to be.  Negative numbers  > are numberings from the end of the relevant paragraph, starting  > from -1.  I've included explanations where I felt them necessary,  > and recommendations where I have been able to think of some.  Given  > the hour, many of them are probably more terse than they should be,  > and I've probably missed a few things, but I hope you still find it  > all useful. > > [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v4_proofed.doc [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v4_proofnotes.txt
To: From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:16:11 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Changes: 1. adapted and smoothed intro in light of ethiopian invasion. 2. few other clean ups. not many 3. added hanna's timeline and chinese oil for arms / african-china  congress analysis, and further translation .doc forensics 4. purged discussion about translation source Does NOT include the proofs sent by xxxxxxxxxxxxx to this list in the last  half hour. xxxxxxxxx, if you don't hear from me again before reading this message, can  you do the final put together (use merge changes)? Nice work xxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxx, anonymous, xxxxxxxxxxxxx & JY. A  very promising and timely result. Let's hope it  gives the poor Somalis succor -- they're going  to need it. [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v5.doc
From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:08:44 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Changes: 1. v4.1 merged with v5 2. americaniZe spelling 3. beautify intro little more Have a look. I like it. I'll shop it around later today, barring the  most dramatic discoveries. Only 1.1 million - 2 leaks to go...
To: From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:32:55 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxx & interviewed xxxxxxxxx a few years back around the time of his  work exposing Crypto AG. But JYA will find this amusing: I'd be happy to help as an advisory board member. I will think about others who may be also interested and provide you  with their email addresses. 2 things come to mind -- being able to separate bogus documents from  actual ones -- therefore it may be a good idea to have a forgery  expert on the advisory board as well. John Young of Cryptome.org has done yeoman's work on publishing  documents to the chagrin of a dozen or more intell agencies. He may  also be a good person to approach. He is adept at anonymizing the  sources of his documents. for future ref: my snail mail address is: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for more secure communications. best for the New Year, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:08:08 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I don't know if you remember me or xxxxxxxxxxx, but yes,  we are also on the WL advisory board. Some of us are involved writing under a collective allonym for  various strategic reasons (not revealed here) I enclose our first  article. The article is long, but the subject is time sensitive. I  know I can get material into counterpunch, and that venue reflects  certain freedoms, but otherwise I don't have a feel for the american  MSM or quasi-MSM. Can you have a look at the article and suggest  placements? In particular a venue that others thieve from may be  unusually useful. Happy new year! [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v62.doc
From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:08:21 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Fixed several dropped words. Otherwise no change. [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v7.doc
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:09:29 +1100 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hi xxxxxxxxxxx, Thank's for the quick reply. The technology prevents any form of direct censorship -- including by wikileaks itself. The visible wikileaks organisation can be deposed and this will not directly effect document provision. There is indirect communal "censorship" in the manner of wikipedia -- changes can be made to an entry, including deletions, however, those changes can always be seen and reverted. This is effectively taking the paper from the top of the pile and placing it on the bottom of the pile. Still available, but less visible and a lot more hassle to get to. This hassle factor denies these items the oxygen of publicity or convience, which we believe will create a social incentive to only upload material which doesn't suffer this fate, since there are more convienent venues for such material. On 12/28/06, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Thanks for the fascinating message. Wikileaks sounds like a very exciting and promising undertaking with great potential for good. > > But I think there are some "philosophical" issues or principles that need to be clarified before your questions below can be answered, because they will define the character of your project and they will affect how it is perceived by friends and foes. > > These issues boil down to the following: > > Do you recognize any limits on what information may be published on your site?  (If so, what?) > > For example, would you publish personal private information (home addresses, childrens' school names, etc.) about govt officials?  Information about how to use explosives with maximum impact?  Obscene or racist information, or information that incites to violence? > > Will you have a procedure for accepting and considering requests to delete information from your site? > > Of course, there are different ways to answer such questions.  For example, FAS is rather conservative in this respect-- there are things we will not publish, and occasionally we will remove documents from online access on request.  By contrast, John Young at cryptome.org seems willing to publish just about anything. > > If you are seeking to be "sanctified" and to be perceived as a quasi-journalistic enterprise, then it would be helpful to articulate some editorial standards on these points. > > Anyway, I will think about this some more.  I hope you will keep me informed as it progresses.  Good luck! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:31 PM > To: > Subject: advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] > > xxxxxxx, please pass this around to the relevant folks (is that just you?). > > WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and discussion. Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our technology is (like the WikiPedia) fast and usable by non-technical people. > We have received over one million documents so far. We plan to numerically eclipse the content the English WikiPedia with leaked documents and analysis. > > [http://www.wikileaks.org/] > > We believe fostering a safe, easy, socially sanctified way for uncensorable mass document leaking, publishing and analysis is THE most cost effective generator of good governance. We seek good governance, because good governance does more than run trains on time. > Good governance responds to the sufferings of its people. Good governance answers injustice. > > We are looking for initial advisory board members to advise us politically, since our strengths are in building large technical projects such as the WikiPedia. In particular we'd like your advice > on: > >   1. How can WikiLeaks help you as a journalist and consumer of leaks? >   2. How can WikiLeaks motivate, protect, and help your sources or people like them? >   3. Who are some other good people to approach, of the figurehead variety and of >       the will-actually-do-work variety? >   4. What is your advice on political frame setting and possible funding bodies? > > We expect difficult state lashback unless WikiLeaks can be given a sanctified frame ("center for human rights, democracy, good government and apple pie press freedom project" vs "hackers strike again"). Our initial reputation is carried over form the success of the WikiPedia, but we do not feel this association is, by itself, enough to protect us. The public support of organisations like FAS, who are in some sense sanctified, is vital to our initial survival. > > Advisory board positions will. at least initially, be unpaid, but we feel the role may be of significant interest to you. > > > ps. Have merry Christmass and a Happy New year! >
From: To: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:31:47 -0600 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] So many minor adjustments, so little real change. This incorporates all edits so far. Footnotes have been reattached (they got lost somehow). Some grammar/typos have been fixed. Some smoothing of corners also. Hopefully we're there now. [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v8.doc
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 06:01:09 +1100 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hi xxxxxxxxx, Thanks for your kind words. We've thought long and hard about this. It's easy to percieve the connection between publication and the complaints people make about publication. But this generates a perception bias, because it overlooks the vastness of the invisible. It overlooks the unintended consequences of failing to publish and it overlooks all those who are emancipated by being in a climate where bad governance cannot be concealed. Such a climate is a motivating force to behave better in the first place and shifts structures and individuals that generate bad governance away from positions where they generate poor governance. Injustice concealed cannot be answered. Concealed plans for future injustice cannot be stopped until they are revealed by becoming reality, which is too late. Administrative injustice, by defintion affects many. Government has ample avenues to abuse revelation, not limited to the full force of intelligence, law enforcement, and complicit media. Moves towards the democratisation of revelation are strongly biased in favor of justice. Where democratised revelations are unjust they tend to affect isolated individuals, but where they are just, they affect systems of policy, planning an governance and through them the lives of all. You may point to a salicious main stream media, but that is not democratised revelation. We point instead to the internet as a whole, which although not yet a vehicle of universal free revelation, is very close to it. Look at the great bounty of positive political change pooring forth as a result. WikiLeaks reveals, but it is not primarily a tool of revelation. There are many avenues on the internet for revelation. What does not exist is a social movement to that makes acting ethically by leaking a virtue. What does not exist is a comfortable way for everyone to leak safely and easily. What does not exist is a way to turn raw leaks into into politically influential knowledge through the revoutionary mass collaborative analysis of wikipedia. Sufficient leaking will bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality --  including the US administration. Ellsberg calls for it. Everyone knows it. We're doing it. In relation to timing; We intend to go live with a reduced system in the next month. Untill then we are publishing selected analysis in convential venues to get some material out and encourage assistance. We're gradually scaling up. At the moment we have certain asymmetries- e.g more leaks than we can store or index. It's just a matter of gradually inspiring increasing commitment and resources from generous people. Like yourself :) 12/29/06, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I didn't realize that, thanks.  From my perspective, I think this approach is problematic, since publication of information is not always an act of freedom.  It can also be an act of aggression or oppression.  Because it is so potent I don't think it should be automated to the point that it goes beyond human editorial intervention. But I understand there are advantages to doing so. > > The Somalia piece looks very interesting (though I am not an expert on the subject matter) and it seems like a good opening move for wikileaks. > > Do you have a date in mind for when you will start publishing?  I could probably help spread the word. >
From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:07:56 -0600 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Gotta go now, will do rest later. counterpunch Electronic form only Submit to counterpunch[a t]counterpunch.org Length: you have a better chance with 500-2000 words. Editors don’t guarantee any response to submissions. Phone 1(707) 629-3683 or 1(800) 840-3683 znet Article and graphic submissions to chris.spannos[a t]zmag.org or  sysop[a t]zmag.org (different addresses given on different pages on their  site) No requirements seem to be given. I’ve Mike Albert says they’ll  publish almost anything that fits with their general philosophy and  politics. zmag Article submissions to zmag[a t]zmag.org or lydia.sargent[a t]zmag.org   (different addresses given on different pages on their site) Unsolicited submissions welcome. Letters should be succinct and may be edited for length. Article submissions due 25th of each month -- the 25th of January for  the March issue, and so on. Best to email articles. Articles should include a short, two sentence, biography. No guarantees. Address: 18 Millfield Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543 Phone: +1 508 548 9063 Fax: +1 508 457 0626 csmonitor Length 500 (for fairly simple stories) to 1,400 words (for more in- depth pieces). “When you file a story with us, it is assumed that the piece is  original and exclusive to us for 90 days from the date of publication.” “we accept a new writer's work "on spec" only. That means you give us  the opportunity to read your piece before we decide whether to accept  it; and our agreeing to look at something on spec implies no  financial obligation on our part. We try to render verdicts on pieces  quickly, but we are often inundated, and you should feel free to  pester us for an answer on a perishable story.” basic rate for a story is $200 to $225. “Monitor coverage ­ though you may have to write it before  journalists from other US dailies file their day-one stories ­ almost  always has to read like a day-two analysis.” Copy deadline for news is 7 a.m. EST the day before publication. Email for inquiries: regional editor for Latin America/Africa Matt  Clark http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl? ID=CDE1F4F4A0C3ECE1F2EB, phone +1 617 450-2433, with copy to Amelia  Newcomb newcomba[a t]csps.com village voice, aljazeera Couldn’t find any submission guidelines. Don’t take unsolicited  submissions, I guess.
From: Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:15:17 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Search space constraints:   1. memorable   2. only one or two valid spellings, obvious to all   3. gender neutral or masculine   4. preferably two syllables (first) one second   5. preferably first name errors checks last name etc   6. clever and inducing pride in insiders   7. no or very few google references to full name   8. preferably no or few references even to last name e.g like famous ALP insider, "Hillary Bray", Spi Ballard,  Lee  Kline., Harry Harrison, Jack Lovejack, Larry Lovedocs, etc. However  none of these fill all constraints.
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:38:03 +1100 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] We enourage people to act ethically. If, like Ellsberg they believe that involves disclosing classified information, then we can only respect their courage and do what we can to make their bravery meaningful. We're in a better position to that faced by the NYT with Ellsberg. We have no direct editorial control, the climate is laxer and the technology grants us great freedom as to jurisdiction. I seem to recall US tax deductability having clauses about not advocating violation of US laws? Is this what you were referring to? What's that law like in practice? Your comment on our make up is salient vis Eurasia. Do you have advice on who to approach? Most of are not from US but Tiawan, Europe, and Oceania. We've only just started approaching additional people. The relative wealth and tolerance of the west gives us opportunities to be involved in such a project -- I'm pretty sure it doesn't reflect any dissonanance with our stated objectives -- but it's interesting that that is your perception. On 12/29/6, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Most of these distinguished individuals are of course associated with leaks in the U.S., not in Eastern Europe, China or Russia.  And they more or less openly advocate defiance of U.S. laws on disclosure of classified information.  That may be your position too.  But if so, it would probably disqualify the effort from U.S. foundation support... > > -----Original Message----- > From: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:58 PM > To: > Subject: Re: advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] > > Hi xxxxxxxxxx. Thanks for your Soros suggestion. As you might know, one of the first things such organisatons look for is who is on your advisory board ;) > > So far, among the people who may be known to you, we have xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  John Young, and xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and I suspect Dan Ellsberg, but this has yet to be confirmed. > > On 12/29/06, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Thanks very much.  I can see you have given this some serious thought, and I believe that I understand your argument.  I imagine that I am neither the first nor the last to raise questions. > > > > Anyway, I will continue to think about this, and let's see how things unfold. > > > > One of your questions concerned possible funding sources.  One potential source might be the Soros Open Society Institute: > > > >         http://www.soros.org/
From: Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:52:14 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hey xxxxxxxxxx, We've taken the liberty, at least I hope that's the word, of  subscribing you to one of our internal  mailinglists. The name is  deliberately obscure, but you should have received the subscription  info by now. Please checkout the archives. There's no overview document yet, in  part because we still working out what the problem is and what the  solution looks like. I think we're substantially there, but this  maybe a lack of perspective(s). You may want to read http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; an obscure motivational  document, almost useless in light of its decontextualization and  perhaps even then. But if you read while thinking about how different  structures of power are differentially affected by leaks (the  defection of the inner to the outer) its motivations may be clearer. The more secretive and unjust  an organization is, the more leaks  induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This  must result in minimization of efficient internal communications  mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent  system-wide cognitive decline and hence the ability to hold onto  power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems  are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust  systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely  have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable  to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance. Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything  intelligent he has to know what's actually going on. Best,
From: Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 04:21:43 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I've shopped the somali article around to the usual places, but no  bites or rejections yet. My feeling is that this is due to     1. time of year     2. length     3. new byline with no rep I've asked xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to go intermediary.
From: Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 08:56:55 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] It's clear to me that as i2p, tor, anonnet and freenet evolves, other  p2p programs become more anon and file-sharing web-sites become more  popular the anon + can't get the cat in the bag part aspects of the  internet will become fait acompli with its general in speed and  sophistication. There will be real free speech -- that also means an inability to  enforce copyrights, which is great since otherwise we will find all  economic growth diverted into the entertainment industry as the  ability to falsify sense-data becomes ever more sophisticated, but  human eyes and brains remain the same. Of course, this'll only pause things slightly -- those companies will  move instead to the supply of mmorg like sense falsification, but the  regime of better governance that true free expression gives will  enable all manner of positive interventions. Although there is some  argument to be make that speech is still shackled until financial  transactions are free. [otherwise unmonetized free speech competes  with monetized censored speech] WL can advance the political/governance aspects of these developments  by several years which will have all sorts of positive cascades, not  the least of which is total annihilation of the current US regime and  any other regime that  holds its authority through mendacity alone.
To: From: Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:34:21 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Our Chinese sources have submitted proof of the electronic monitoring of the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. We invited the president to join our cause and he has accepted with characteristic buddhist grace. Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 2. Januar 2007 06:32:23 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: Re: Advisory board position Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,   Happy New Year 2007. May the year be more meaningful to your noble activities.   Thank you for writing to me. It will be a pleasure to be  part of such important mission.   If it is of some benefit in someway, I am pleased to accept your invitation to serve as initial advisory board member.  I am doing so in my personal capacity and donot represent the organization I belong to. Should you want someone to represent the organization, please let me know so that we can discuss with my other board members.   Best wishes,   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   -------------- Original message -------------- From: > > We're looking for initial advisory board members. We think someone > from your organization may be interested. > > WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for > untraceable mass document leaking and discussion. Our primary targets > are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and central > Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west > who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and > corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our > technology is (like the WikiPedia) fast and usable by non-technical > people. > We have received over one million documents so far. We plan to > numerically > eclipse the content the English WikiPedia with leaked documents and > analysis. > > [http://www.wikileaks.org/] > > We believe fostering a safe, easy, socially sanctified way for > uncensorable mass document leaking, publishing and analysis is THE > most cost effective generator of good governance. We seek good > governance, because good governance does more than run trains on time. > Good governance responds to the sufferings of its people. Good > governance answers injustice. > > We are looking for initial advisory board members to advise us > politically and technically. In particular we'd like your advice > on: > > 1. How can WikiLeaks help the xxxxxxxxxx cause? > 2. How can WikiLeaks motivate, protect, and help your sources or > people like them? > 3. Who are some other good people to approach, of the figurehead > variety and of the will-actually-do-wo rk variety? > 4. How can we best support xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx sourced leaks? What are > the local issues? > > Advisory board positions will. at least initially, be unpaid, but we > feel the role may be of significant interest to you. > > ps. Happy New year! >
To: From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:59:48 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 4. Januar 2007 09:47:02 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: Media Request Your website got me intrigued. Can I talk to someone about the project? Thanks! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This electronic message transmission contains information from Forbes.com, Inc. which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone (+1-212-366-8900) or by electronic mail by replying to this transmission immediately. Thank you very much.
To: From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:04 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 4. Januar 2007 08:59:35 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: Reporter wondering... ..who are you? I cover various topics for science magazine and am interested in your aims and background for perhaps a short article on the effort. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter Science Magazine xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:24 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 4. Januar 2007 08:54:04 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: Questions from Federal Times Dear Sir or Madam, I am trying to reach someone from Wikileaks for a short article I am writing for tomorrow (1/4). My questions include: How long has the site been in the works? When will it go live? What portion of the 1.1 million documents you mention is from the U.S. government? How do you respond to criticism that automated leaking of documents is irresponsible? Aren't some leaks, such as one designed to mislead, bad?   Thanks very much. My deadline is 12pm Thur.   Regards,   xxxxxxxxxxxxx Staff Writer Federal Times
To: From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:10:08 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Wikileaks and Untraceable Document Disclosure A new internet initiative called Wikileaks seeks to promote good  government and democratization by enabling anonymous disclosure and  publication of confidential government records. "WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for  untraceable mass document leaking and analysis," according to the  project web site. "Our primary targets are highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia,  central eurasia, the middle east and sub-saharan Africa, but we also  expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal  unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations." "A system [that] enables everyone to leak safely to a ready audience  is the most cost effective means of promoting good government -- in  health and medicine, in food supply, in human rights, in arms control  and democratic institutions." Wikileaks says that it has already acquired over one million  documents that it is now preparing for publication. The project web site is not yet fully "live." But an initial offering  -- a document purportedly authored by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of  Somalia's radical Islamic Courts Union -- is posted in a zipped file  here. An analysis of the document's authenticity and implications is posted  here. Wikileaks invited Secrecy News to serve on its advisory board. We  explained that we do not favor automated or indiscriminate  publication of confidential records. In the absence of accountable editorial oversight, publication can  more easily become an act of aggression or an incitement to violence,  not to mention an invasion of privacy or an offense against good taste. So we disagree on first principles? No problem, replied Wikileaks:  "Advisory positions are just that -- advisory! If you want to advise  us to censor, then by all means do so." While Wikileaks seeks to make unauthorized disclosures  technologically immune to government control, an opposing school of  thought proposes to expand U.S. government authority to seize control  of information that is already in the public domain when its  continued availability is deemed unacceptably dangerous. "Although existing authorities do not directly address the subject,  it appears that reasonable restrictions upon the possession and  dissemination of catastrophically dangerous information can be  constitutionally implemented," suggests Stewart Harris of the  Appalachian School of Law. See "Restrictions are justifiable,"  National Law Journal, December 11, 2006.
To: From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:10:47 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 4. Januar 2007 06:18:09 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: RE: advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] Thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxa blog entry on WL here:       http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/wikileaks_and_untraceable_docu.html   From: Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:39 PM To: Subject: Re: advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] Hi xxxxxxxxxxxx, The site is not yet live in the way it will be (i.e like wikipedia). You can write about it's developments (we're interested in more volunteers etc) if you like. We now have the washington tibet association on board (we received a leak about their chinese penetration). Other than our .tw people we're still looking for appropriate (i.e hopefully more than just figurehead) chinese dissidents. The document is available as /som.zip Take care, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx   From: Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 11:20 PM To: Subject: Re: advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] Hi xxxxxxxxxxx. Thanks again for your comments. Rather than probing positions on censorship, let's take a rest and look at why we approached you. Advisory positions are just that -- advisory! If you want to advise us to censor, then by all means do so. If you feel you must, you can tell the world that was your advise. An advisory board that has a uniformity of opinion does not give good advise. We (board) are all young people. We're not rusted on. You will be heard. Since the role is only advisory we may do something else. You may resign at anytime. On 30.12.2006, at 02:22, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: We may have a basic disagreement that I would describe this way by analogy:  I respect and admire John Young and I check his cryptome.org website every day.  But I also think he is irresponsible when he publishes maps and images of the homes of government officials.  If such actions were "automated," that would not be an improvement. This is an argument for doing away with the camera or the internet. Whether you buy such an argument depends, not on such stuff happening, not even on it happening more, but rather the ratio of good outcomes to bad. At least, so it seems to us. Wikipedia has true material people would rather was not universally known. Yet, we can see, like the camera, the great reach of these inventions has been a boon for mankind. We think WL will be far less "sectarian" than Cryptome so the above ratio will be more favourable to us than Cryptome. I know you would prefer JY to censor, but given that he doesn't -- what's your position? Qualified support, or desire for its abolishment?
To: From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:29:51 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's blog entry seems to have triggered off media  interest. This premature and may distract us from our goals. We need  to think quickly and carefully about how to channel it.
From: To: Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:01:01 -0600 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] There are benefits to exposure even at this early stage: greater publicity, widespread knowledge of the project, scaring oppressive power wherever it resides. Attract more potential users and board members. Obtain more respect. And costs: greater chance of govt surveillance/attacks. At this stage not much cover from respectable advisory board. Without proper launch and clarifications, all sorts of unfounded attacks can be made. Lose respect. On the one hand, freedom of information is a respected liberal value, and we may get some sympathy, but I wouldn't count on it. On the other, institutionally residing within and sympathetic to authoritarian hierarchical structures, corporate media will tend towards pillorying the project as a threat, for any number of potential reasons: for being irresponsible, derailing war on terrorism, undermining perceived good work by governments, whatever. Our options include: Make a press release or something equivalent. Don’t respond. Respond to particular inquiries. I’m not sure what is the best approach here. Posting a press release on the website is maybe best? Also, maybe we should think about posting some sort of statement of principles eventually? Though it’s maybe a bit early for this? Corporate media will shy away from or distort nuanced arguments. Need to make a few clear points and hold to them. I suggest the following, as a start, all up for discussion. (In particular, we could be more specific, or more vague about details.) 1. Ethics. We favour, and uphold, ethical behaviour in all circumstances. We do not believe in unquestioning obedience to authority in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where injustice reigns and is enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing information may embarrass authoritarian power structures or expose oppression or major crimes, we recognise a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing often involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, this project provides means and opportunity to minimise such risks. 2. Under construction. The project is not yet fully under way. Membership of our advisory board is not yet settled. Website/editorial policies are not yet fully formulated. No agreed statement of principles is yet published. 3. Gauntlet. We are no friends of oppressive regimes, dictators, authoritarian governmental institutions or exploitative corporations. We fully intend to expose injustice and make the world a better place; this is our overarching goal and all policy will be formulated with this goal in mind. 4. Wikipedia gives reassurance. Concerns raised here regarding privacy and irresponsibility also arise with wikipedia. The wikipedia project has proved remarkably successful at providing accurate, relevant and up-to-date information without breaches of privacy. On wikipedia, irresponsible posting or editing of material, or posting of false material, can be reversed by other users, and the results have been extremely satisfying and reassuring. There is no reason to expect any different from WL. Indeed, as discovered with wikipedia to the surprise of many, there is hope that the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may provide rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and analysis. 5. Room for debate. There is the possibility of false or malicious leaks. Despite the example of wikipedia, there is the possibility of leaks encroaching upon the privacy of innocent individuals. There are legitimate questions to be asked and discussions to be had. On the one hand censorship is a hallmark of oppressive power structures. On the other, if an absolutely free forum for information distribution is used for irresponsible purposes, it undermines its own goals. In some sense any forum for freely posting information involves the potential for abuse, but measures can be taken to minimise any potential harm. In conjunction with the advisory board, policy will be formulated in line with these considerations. The overriding goal is to provide a forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice; beyond this, no particular method or policy is set in stone.
From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:05:34 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hi xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thank you for your letter. We're surprised by the very early press interest , which we would have welcomed later, but which is now difficult for us, as it will affect our delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies.  But as several journalists have contacted us now, there's clearly no stopping it, so we'll try do our best to help you. 1. WL was founded by chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.  1.1 Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.  2. There are currently 22 people directly involved in the project. 3. We haven't sought public feedback so far, but dissident communities have been been very gracious with their assistance. 4. The wiki does not require registration and the users behaves in the same manner as the Wikipedia. You can't see the wiki on www.wikileaks.org, because the public launch date is at least a month away. 5. Wikileaks integrates a number of cryptographic technologies into Wikipedia to create anonymity and censorship resistance while retaining most of Wikipedia's ease of use and performance including modified versions of http://freenetproject.org, http://tor.eff.org, PGP and software of our own design.  6. The prototype has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment. These include additional funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as "consumers" of leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. 7. Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in western administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions. We favour, and uphold, ethical behaviour in all circumstances. We do not believe in unquestioning obedience to authority in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where injustice reigns and is enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing information may embarrass authoritarian power structures or expose oppression or major crimes, we recognise a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing often involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, this project provides means and opportunity to minimise such risks. All the best for the new year, On 04.01.2007, at 08:35, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Hi, I'm a reporter at National Journal’s Technology Daily. For tomorrow's edition, I'm working on a story about your "Wikileaks" venture. Since you created the site, your input is critical to the story.   ***THE DEADLINE IS 1:00 P.M. ET TOMORROW (THURSDAY)***   Do you think you can meet the deadline? If so, here are my questions. Thanks. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Who founded Wikileaks? What kind of background does the founder(s) have? How many people are operating the Web site? What kind of feedback have you gotten so far? I'm still learning about wikis. Does your wiki require registration or passwords? Why did you make this decision? From a technological standpoint, what makes your wiki "uncensorable?" What's next for the site? Are you concerned about any legal consequences to attempting this sort of project? Why or why not? Feel free to add anything. xxxxxxxxxxxx, National Journal's Technology Daily  
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:41:07 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Aftergood's report was unexpected, particularly for showing wikileaks.org was active and the first document was available. When did access become public, and was that announced here? Or did Aftergood release private information, say in disagreement with WL purposes. His comments on WL were disdainful, and appear to have been made to buttress his own endeavor as more honorable and respectable -- he has a habit of doing that, but so do others who cherish their reputation (and carefully nuture support of those who really have a problem with uncontrolled information as if it is "dangerous to go too far, yadda, yadda."). Reporters, and keep in mind they are competitors with WL as much as any keepers of secrets and peddlers of inside information, (all obsessed with appearing to be "responsible" arbiters of what information gets published) will most certainly dig for unfriendly aspects of WL to gain reader attention and to show they are not complicit in WL unrespectable intentions. Some will promise one thing to get information and do the opposite for publication. Some will fuck you for failing to do what they asked. Expect agents of the authorities to pry into WL by way of journalists, supporters, funders, advisory board members; that is customary for those hoping to smoke out opposition. Expect smears, lies, forgeries, betrayal, bribes, and the host of common tools used to suppress dissent. Expect taunts, insults, ridicule, praise, admiration, obsequiousness, arrogance, skepticism, demands for who the fuck are you, I need the information for an urgent deadline. Expect accusations that someone else associated with WL has already told me such and such so why are you being so coy? Expect much flattery and disdain. Beware of disclosing private information as a means to recruit. Beware of releasing information about WL founders and supporters, that will be grist for the truth twisters. Keep anonymous as possible or WL is doomed. This discussion list is going to be leaked. Anonymize, anonymize every communication with the press and potential recruits. Somebody is going to come at me as the name on the NSI registry. The less I know about WL people the better. And I know for sure that everyone associated with WL is a bald-faced liar, an agent of the authorities and the worst of the worst.
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 02:07:36 +1100 Subject: [WL] Re: Reporter wondering... [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Deadline not till next week...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter Science Magazine >>> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 01/03 11:25 PM >>> Some answers to other questions: On 04.01.2007, at 15:08, Wikileaks wrote: > Hi xxxxxxxxxxxx. We're surprised  and unprepared by all the early media > interest. What's your deadline? We're mostly mathematicians. We > like Science. > > On 04.01.2007, at 08:59, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> ..who are you? I cover various topics for science magazine and am >> interested in your aims and background for perhaps a short article on >> the effort. >> >> xxxxxxxxxxxx, Reporter >> Science Magazine >> I am trying to reach someone from Wikileaks for a short article I am writing for tomorrow (1/4). My questions include: How long has the site been in the works? When will it go live? What portion of the 1.1 million documents you mention is from the U.S. government? How do you respond to criticism that automated leaking of documents is irresponsible? Aren't some leaks, such as one designed to mislead, bad? Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I hope the following helps. Presently none of the 1.1 million documents are directly from western governments. However, because of the inter-connectedness of governments  around the world, there are documents sent from the US and other western governments to other governments in our collection. Misleading leaks -- already well placed in the main stream media. WL is of no additional assistance to them. If they're of political significance, they will be very closely collaboratively analyzed by hundreds of wikipedia editors in a way main stream media leaked documents could never dream of. See our somali leak for an early example. Best for the new year, Thank you for your letter. We're surprised by the very early press interest , which we would have welcomed later, but which is now difficult for us, as it will affect our delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies.  But as several journalists have contacted us now, there's clearly no stopping it, so we'll try do our best to help you. 1. WL was founded by chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. 1.1 Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers. 2. There are currently 22 people directly involved in the project. 3. We haven't sought public feedback so far, but dissident communities have been been very gracious with their assistance. 4. The wiki does not require registration and the users behaves in the same manner as the Wikipedia. You can't see the wiki on www.wikileaks.org, because the public launch date is at least a month away. 5. Wikileaks integrates a number of cryptographic technologies into Wikipedia to create anonymity and censorship resistance while retaining most of Wikipedia's ease of use and performance including modified versions of http://freenetproject.org, http://tor.eff.org, PGP and software of our own design. 6. The prototype has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment. These include additional funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as "consumers" of leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. 7. Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non- western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in western administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions. We favour, and uphold, ethical behaviour in all circumstances. We do not believe in unquestioning obedience to authority in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where injustice reigns and is enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing information may embarrass authoritarian power structures or expose oppression or major crimes, we recognise a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing often involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, this project provides means and opportunity to minimise such risks. All the best for the new year, Who founded Wikileaks? What kind of background does the founder(s) have? How many people are operating the Web site? What kind of feedback have you gotten so far? I'm still learning about wikis. Does your wiki require registration or passwords? Why did you make this decision?   From a technological standpoint, what makes your wiki "uncensorable?" What's next for the site? Are you concerned about any legal consequences to attempting this sort of project? Why or why not? Feel free to add anything.
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 02:16:45 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hello Wikileaks   I just read about your project in the Federation of American Scientists' "Secrecy News" newsletter and was wondering if you could answer a few questions.   If so, here goes:   1. Who is behind the Wikileaks project (although that is probably a very dumb question for an anonymizing service for leaked data).   2. Is this a project backed by Wikipedia?   3. Will Wikileaks vet leaked documents to ascertain a genuine public interest defence in hosting the leaked documents or whether the leak is purely malicious, such as a business plan leaked by a disgruntled employee? If so, who will do the vetting and decide on its "genuineness"?   If you'd rather talk, my number is below. If you don't know New Scientist, it is a science and technology newsweekly (50 years old last November) and we have 2 million print and online readers, half of them in the US.   My deadline is noon Friday GMT.   best regards   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Chief Technology Correspondent | New Scientist | London |   r===================== DISCLAIMER ====================== This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. Reed Business Information Ltd. and its subsidiary companies Tel: +44 (0)20 8652 3500 =======================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:12:52 -0500 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Thanks. One quick question: 1. Will the public be able to discuss and contextualize the documents, visibly, on Wikileaks, similar to the way people can post replies to blog entries online? (Some folks I've been interviewing wondered whether the public will be able to participate in a discussion of the authenticity of the documents, contextualize the documents and point people to related documents) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  National Journal's Technology Daily
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:35:00 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx. Thank  very much for your support, which coming from Pogo means a great deal to us. Although we are primarily targeted at non-western governments, we think Pogo may have important advice for us on what is needed in the US. We would like to invite Pogo to join our initial advisory board either in an organizational or individual capacity. Warmly,  On 05.01.2007, at 03:23, xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Hello wikileaks, I am so glad you are doing this. I had the same idea a month or so ago but know nothing about wiki so wouldn’t even know where it start. Please keep us informed of your progress. We will send leaks your way! Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight is an independent nonprofit which investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.  
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:35:18 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 5. Januar 2007 03:47:59 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: interviews? Is anyone available to do a radio interview regarding this project? --  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Friday Morning After" CKUT Radio, Montreal
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:35:56 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 5. Januar 2007 04:55:02 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: inquiry from the washington post Hello, I'd like to write an item on Wikileaks for the Washington Post.  Could someone please contact me with more information about the site? My numbers are below. Many thanks, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Washington Post
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:50:28 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.]   Web site aims to post government secrets By DANIEL FRIEDMAN January 04, 2007 Forget parking garages. Tomorrow’s Deep Throats can go wiki. A new Web site that aims to encourage large-scale leaking of  confidential government documents by allowing anonymous disclosure  could launch as early as next month. Beneath a quotation from famed Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel  Ellsberg, www.Wikileaks.org says it seeks to increase government  transparency around the world by using “an uncensorable version of  Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.” Founded by a group that includes technologists and Chinese  dissidents, Wikileaks would promote democracy and prevent corruption,  and is aimed primarily at oppressive foreign regimes, according to  organizers. But the site says it also wants “to be of service to  those in the West who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own  government and corporations.” The site is online but not yet operating. In an e-mail, Wikileaks  spokeswoman Hanna De Jong said that about 22 people involved in the  project are still testing the prototype and seeking funding from  groups like the Soros Foundation’s Open Society Institute, which  promotes democracy and human rights. De Jong said Wikileaks’ advisory  board includes journalists, cryptographers, a former U.S.  intelligence analyst and expatriates from Russian and Tibetan refugee  communities. The group says it has already received more than 1 million documents.  De Jong said none of those come directly from Western governments,  but documents sent from the United States to other states are  included. The site uses various cryptographic technologies to allow  anonymity while maintaining Wikpedia’s easy use, she said. Spurred by the success of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, Web  sites nicknamed “wikis” that allow collaborative authoring by letting  anyone edit content are proliferating, even within government. Ohio’s Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, recently launched  an online directory of local agencies that will be publicly  maintained, allowing citizens to add and delete information, for  example. In October, the federal Office of the Director of National  Intelligence unveiled Intellipedia, intended to improve intelligence  sharing by letting authorized analysts collaboratively edit content  on the government’s classified Intelink Web site. But Wikileaks is radically different. The site makes broad claims  regarding the value of unauthorized disclosures. “Historically the most resilient form of open government is one where  leaking and publication is easy,” it says. “Public leaking, being an  act of ethical defection to the majority, is by nature a  democratizing force. Hence a system [that] enables everyone to leak  safely to a ready audience is the most cost effective means of  promoting good government.” But the initiative, sure to concern U.S. officials who want to  restrict access to documents, may go too far even for government  transparency advocates. Wikileaks’ intention to allow anonymous publication of confidential  records without oversight by an accountable editor could cause leaks  that invade privacy or incite violence, Steven Aftergood, head of the  Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy,  wrote Jan. 3 in his online newsletter, Secrecy News. “I’m sort of waiting to see how it works in practice,” Aftergood said  in an interview. “But in principle I think it’s much too  indiscriminate and susceptible to abuse.” “There’s a difference in unauthorized disclosure from an  authoritarian state versus disclosure from a democracy,” he said. “In  a democratic system, people have the opportunity to define their own  disclosure standards. If you violate those standards or encourage  others to do so then you are in effect undermining the democratic  process.” De Jong, however, said misleading leaks “are already well-placed in  the mainstream media. [Wikileaks] is of no additional assistance.” Politically significant leaks will be “collaboratively analyzed by  hundreds of [Wikileaks] editors in a way mainstream media-leaked  documents could never dream of,” she said. She said the group is prepared for legal attacks. “We design the software and promote its human rights agenda, but the  servers are run by anonymous volunteers,” she wrote. “Because we have  no commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict  its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face  coercion to make the software censorship-friendly, there are many  others who would continue the work in other jurisdictions.” E-mail: dfriedman[a t]federaltimes.com Email this story to a friendf
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:48:14 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: > From: > Date: 5. Januar 2007 09:30:21 GMT+11:00 > To: > Subject: RE: [WL] RE: article: wikileaks > > Hi xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > > Thanks much. Here's what we published this afternoon: > > Civil Liberties > Forthcoming 'Wiki' Aims To Leak, Analyze Documents > by Aliya Sternstein > >      A group of Chinese dissidents and technologists from across  > the world is designing an "uncensorable" version of Wikipedia to  > encourage untraceable, mass leaks and analysis of documents from  > authoritarian regimes, the U.S.   government and corporations. >      Wikileaks.org, still under construction, combines a  > collaborative "wiki" software interface with cryptographic  > technologies to hide contributor identities and block censors, said  > Hanna De Jong, the organization's spokeswoman. The protective  > programming includes modified versions of the Tor toolset from the  > Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Free Network Project, PGP and  > Wikileaks' custom software. >      Wikileaks' primary targets are closed societies in Africa,  > Asia and the Middle East. "We also expect to be of assistance to  > those in the West who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their  > own governments and corporations," the site reads. >      A wiki is basically a public Web log that anyone with an  > Internet browser can add to or modify. Wikipedia is an online, self- > evolving encyclopedia updated by a community of users. >      Wikileaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians  > and startup techies in the United States, Australia, Europe, South  > Africa and Taiwan. Its growing advisory board contains  > representatives from Russian and Tibetan refugee communities,  > reporters, one former U.S. intelligence analyst and cryptographers,  > De Jong said. >      "We are prepared, structurally and technically to deal with  > all legal attacks," she said. >      "In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to  > make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who  > will continue the work in other jurisdictions," De Jong added. The  > servers are run by anonymous volunteers, and Wikileaks' software  > will be disseminated for free, if necessary. >      Some e-democracy advocates question the value of publishing  > documents without attribution or authentication. >      "The government could be putting up information to discredit  > dissidents," said Leslie Harris, executive director   at the Center  > for Democracy and Technology. "In an oppressive government, we have  > no way to know if it's an attempt at disinformation." She also  > noted the dangers of posting libelous information or sensitive,  > personal information on an unmediated site. >      Harris said she hopes the public will be able to discuss and  > contextualize the documents on Wikileaks in a manner similar to the  > way people can make criticisms on blog entries. >      "I think it's very important that there be opportunities for  > people to discuss whether the document is authentic," she said.  > "You should be able to comment visibly about the document and point  > people to other documents." >      Wikileaks recently invited Steven Aftergood, a government  > secrecy researcher at the Federation of American Scientists, to  > serve on its advisory board. He publishes the e-mail newsletter,  > "Secrecy News," which often provides links to hard-to-obtain  > documents. >      Aftergood said he has not yet decided whether to get involved  > with the venture. "I still want to see how they launch, what the  > focus is and if they're putting out good material ... and if the  > positive outweighs the negative," he said. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > National Journal's Technology Daily > From: > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:18 PM > To: > Subject: Re: [WL] RE: article: wikileaks > > Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx, > > I like your summery. > > Yes, this is WIKIleaks. The protective aspects are there merely to  > remove the fear of involvement in this worthy activity. For  > instance, in the case of the example Somalia analysis we expect  > thousands of refugees from the Somali, Ethiopian and Chinese expat  > communities to easily outstrip our example analysis. In this manner  > the political relevance of the documents and their verisimilitude  > will be revealed by a cast of thousands. >
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:48:48 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 5. Januar 2007 10:08:10 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: Media request I'm a freelance reporter who writes for Wired News, Salon, and other publications. I'm interested in writing a story about the Wikileaks site and was wondering if there's someone available to speak with me about it. You can reach me at 510.601.0948 or send me a number where I can reach you and I'll call you. Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:36:51 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] We can turn this unexpected difficulty into a great blessing by being  crafty and exuberant in our attentions over the next few days. The hunger for freedom and truth is clearly so intense that despite  having little more than "we're working on it" and a nice example  (that few seem bother to read in their quest for the salacious) off  it goes on its own exponential of media read, write and rewrite.   Random quotes (not from us) and rephrasing will lead to the most  salacious evolving in the galapagos of quote, edit and requote. What this means is that we have to answer questions before they're  asked and we have to answer them with statements that optimize max (journalistic lazynes + quote sexyness). Analogously, the public sphere is warm milk, into which has leaked  our culture. Bacterial growth follows an exponential -- left  unmolested it would become the congealed yogurt of our desires, but  random innocents and malefactors alike are injecting their their own  bacterial strain into the mix. The impact of early strains of  information release (ours and others) will be fantastically amplified  by the exponential process. Consequently we must expend as much  energies on this IMMEDIATELY as we have inorder to set path of future  perceptions, which will otherwise require far more energies to  correct even a day later. Since we can not seal the public sphere from the influence of others,  our only recourse is to continually inject our informational strain  into the ferment. If we keep our strain (our public positioning )  consistent and quotable we should come to dominate the culture when  opposed by relatively random influences of others. And despite JYAs seasoned fears, our opponents thus far are  essentially uncoordinated; they do not strike with vigor at the same  point. Here follows our blessing. Because WL has not yet generated ANY specific enemies (at least  outside of China and Somalia), attacks are generalized ("pro- censorship") , unmotivated, limp-wristed and lack precision and  common direction. This will not be the case once we release substantial material. That  will invoke enemies with specific grievances. Our previous desire to  splash forth only with a fully operational system with content would  have generated both specific opposition and fears by example. Hence we have a great opportunity -- to push our desired perceptions  of what WL is into the world, to set the key in which future bars of  our song are to be played by the public orchestra, BEFORE it faces  any serious opposition.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:16:24 -0800 To: funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.net,Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org> From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Certainly all these inquiries should be answered, perhaps by Hanna, or others using that wonderfully anonymizing and untraceable name, could provide inconsistent responses to the consistent questions sounding so much alike. The wikileak ethical statement is a marvel, totally unbelievable in the manner of professional peddlers of responsible leakages. Is there a target date for wikileaks.org becoming interactive, hyperactive, flooded with spam and attacks and demands to name names or else? Any advisory board members jumped ship yet?
Subject: Re: [WL] Fwd: inquiry from the washington post Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:38:03 +1100 To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> From: John --- no ship jumps, plank walks or keel hauls. Though some here  may want to feed the sniveling holier than thou After Good Comes Bad  to the swirling creatures of the deep, we will continue to project  puppy dog eye rolls and the greatest generosity, acceptance and respect. Can you reveal further analysis and advice on which "ethical  statement" you are referring to?
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:09:38 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Dearest friends, We have decided to pre-empt questions diverted to others under the  less obvious (than a press release) projection of  a FAQ. Please quickly google stories (including news/blog search) for wl  (many now!). Find all the gut directly asked questions and extract  the real question in the reporters mind that motivated the quote and  send them in. For example if a story quotes 'Farrah believes the impact on Iran  will be X' , derive the reporters internal question "What will be the  impact on Iran/Islamic countries/axis of evil?" What other questions do you predict will be asked? Answer some if you have time, but send questions quickly! xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: To: Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:36:01 -0600 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Including snippets from recent emails which sounded cool. Notes: The first question is really general, perhaps too general, but perhaps it’s worth putting in something like an FAQ, I don’t know, if only as a framing for saying what we want to say. Rhetoric is generally overblown, and deliberately so. Feel free to tone down. On the other hand perhaps there are sufficiently sexy statements for the press. :P I put in the figure of 22 people, but we might want to delete this, since it’s liable to change. I put in an approximate launch date of February/March 2007. But we might not want to put anything like that in. Please revise, more techie people. Please discuss, particularly the privacy/irresponsibility question, which is important to the corporate press. Feel free, in fact, to rearrange/dismember/redo. It's more a matter of getting the appropriate words out. What is WL? Why “wikify” leaking? WL is an uncensorable version of wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. It combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the transparency and simplicity of a wiki interface. Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future. Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the population about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practiced by their government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite facing criminal charges, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon papers shocks the world, exposes the government, and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of lives. But this is just one example. The power of principled leaking to embarrass governments, corporations and institutions is amply demonstrated through recent history. Public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions pressures them to act ethically. What official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry? When the risks of embarrassment through openness and honesty increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most cost effective method of promoting good governance. Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and democratization is greater than ever. WL is a tool to satisfy that need. WL is cutting out the middleman, reducing the risk to potential leakers, and improving analysis and dissemination of leaked documents. WL provides simple and straightforward means for anonymous and untraceable leaking of documents. At the same time, WL opens leaked documents up to a much more exacting scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency could provide: the scrutiny of a worldwide community of informed wiki editors. Instead of a couple of academic specialists, WL will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability. They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document is leaked from Somalia, the entire Somali refugee community can analyze it and put it in context. And so on. WL may become the most powerful intelligence agency on earth, an intelligence agency of the people. It will be an open source, democratic intelligence agency. But it will be far better, far more principled, and far less parochial than any governmental intelligence agency; consequently, it will be more accurate, and more relevant. It will have no commercial or national interests at heart; its only interests will be truth and freedom of information. Unlike the covert activities of national intelligence agencies, WL will rely upon the power of overt fact to inform citizens about the truths of their world. WL will resonate not to the sound of money or guns or the flow of oil, but to the grievances of oppressed and exploited people around the world. It will be the outlet for every government official, every bureaucrat, every corporate worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information which the institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WL can broadcast to the world. WL will be a forum for the ethical defection of unaccountable and abusive power to the people. WL will be an anvil at which beats the hammer of the collective conscience of humanity. How will WL operate? To the user, WL will look very much like wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands. WL will also incorporate advanced cryptographic technologies for anonymity and untraceability. Those who provide leaked information may face severe risks, whether of political repercussions, legal sanctions or physical violence. Accordingly, extremely sophisticated mathematical and cryptographic techniques will be used to secure privacy, anonymity and untraceability. For the technically minded, WL integrates technologies including modified versions of http://freenetproject.org, http://tor.eff.org, PGP and software of our own design. WL will be deployed in a way that makes it impervious to political and legal attacks. In this sense it is uncensorable. Who is behind WL? WL was founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers. There are currently 22 people directly involved in the project and counting. What is your relationship to wikipedia? WL has no formal relationship to wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology. Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate collective intelligence and knowledge. Both place their trust in an informed community of citizens. What wikipedia is to the encyclopedia, WL will be to leaks. Wikipedia provides a positive example on which WL is based. The success of wikipedia in providing accurate and up-to-date information has been stunning and surprising to many. Wikipedia shows that the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may produce massive volumes of accurate knowledge in a rapid, democratic and transparent manner. WL aims to harness this phenomenon to provide fast and accurate dissemination, verification, analysis, interpretation and explanation of leaked documents, for the benefit of people all around the world. What is WL’s present stage of development? WL has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment. We require additional funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as “consumers” of leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. We have received over 1.1 million documents so far. We plan to numerically eclipse the content of the English wikipedia with leaked documents. Anyone interested in helping us out with any of the above should contact us by email at [insert address here]. When will WL go live? We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March 2007. Couldn’t leaking involve invasions of privacy? Couldn’t mass leaking of documents be irresponsible? Aren’t some leaks deliberately false and misleading? Providing a forum for freely posting information involves the potential for abuse, but measures can be taken to minimize any potential harm. The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinize and discuss leaked documents. Concerns about privacy, irresponsibility and false information also arise with wikipedia. On wikipedia, irresponsible posting or editing of material, or posting of false material, can be reversed by other users, and the results have been extremely satisfying and reassuring. There is no reason to expect any different from WL. Indeed, as discovered with wikipedia to the surprise of many, the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may provide rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and analysis. Furthermore, misleading leaks and misinformation are already well placed in the mainstream media, as recent history shows, an obvious example being the lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of misinformation will find no assistance from WL, equipped as it is to scrutinize leaked documents in a way that no mainstream media outlet would dare. WL is immune from requirements for headlines, sensations and scoops, along with the doctrinal, ideological and political pressures of the mainstream media, replacing them with incentives for skepticism, logical reasoning, and accuracy. In any case, our overarching goal is to provide a forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice. All policy will be formulated with this goal in mind. Is WL concerned about any legal consequences? Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in western administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically, to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions. Is leaking ethical? We favour, and uphold, ethical behavior in all circumstances. We do not believe in unquestioning obedience to authority in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where injustice reigns and is enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing information may embarrass authoritarian power structures or expose oppression or major crimes, we recognize a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing often involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, WL provides means and opportunity to minimize such risks. We propose that every authoritarian government, every oppressive institution, every exploitative corporation, be subject to the pressure, not merely of freedom of information laws, not even of quadrennial elections, but of something far stronger: the individual consciences of the people within them. WL, we hope, will be a new star in the political firmament of humanity.
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:15:37 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Mention forgot! Since most references are <24 hours new, they are not  in the main google index! Search blogs + news + groups (under "more")
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:52:46 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Any idea what this may mean?   Wikia Inc.     200 2nd Ave. S     Suite 306     St. Petersburg, Florida 33701     United States     Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)     Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.NET        Created on: 03-Jan-07        Expires on: 04-Jan-09        Last Updated on:     Administrative Contact:        Wales, Jimmy  jasonr[a t]bomis.com        Wikia Inc.        200 2nd Ave. S        Suite 306        St. Petersburg, Florida 33701        United States        17273886691
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:08:36 +0000 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. >  Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. >  This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer >  and plenty of backbone.] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Any idea what this may mean? Either he wants to support WL and is registering those in order to do so, or he wants to hedge so he's registering them in order to run his own version, or put his own views on them. I'd ask, if I were you. Or perhaps I will. > >  Wikia Inc. >    200 2nd Ave. S >    Suite 306 >    St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 >    United States > >    Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) >    Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.NET >       Created on: 03-Jan-07 >       Expires on: 04-Jan-09 >       Last Updated on: > >    Administrative Contact: >       Wales, Jimmy  jasonr[a t]bomis.com >       Wikia Inc. >       200 2nd Ave. S >       Suite 306 >       St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 >       United States >       17273886691 >
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:13:37 +0000 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. >  Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. >  This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer >  and plenty of backbone.] > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Thanks. One quick question: > > 1. Will the public be able to discuss and contextualize the documents, > visibly, on Wikileaks, similar to the way people can post replies to > blog entries online? (Some folks I've been interviewing wondered whether > the public will be able to participate in a discussion of the > authenticity of the documents, contextualize the documents and point > people to related documents) [-journo] Interesting question. MySociety recently released http://www.commentonthis.com/ - they're a nice bunch, I'm sure they'd share the code with us if we asked.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:18:29 +0000 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. >  Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. >  This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer >  and plenty of backbone.] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Hi all, > > Can everyone on this list who has functional access to PGP [ i.e will > not cause days of delay to encrypt/decrypt a message]  please send their > public keys to this list? I'd like to keep our discussions on the path > of least resistance and this this generally means, open and transparent, > but there some matters we need to address soon where openness is better > enabled through secrecy; we owe our sources, even through we keep no > logs or other information that might identify them, to exercise mindful > diligence (not paranoia) in response to their courage. > > We're on an exponential; we have no forces working against us yet, but > there will many in a few months and these early discussions may take on > an unexpected poignancy. > [] [PGP key deleted by Cryptome.]
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:13:54 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] My of most probable guess is he wants to protect them from scalpers,  in order to do as ben suggest. On 05.01.2007, at 21:08, xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i- >> l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. >>  Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions;  >> refer instead to 'WL'. >>  This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in  >> Seattle with an established lawyer >>  and plenty of backbone.] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Any idea what this may mean? > > Either he wants to support WL and is registering those in order to do > so, or he wants to hedge so he's registering them in order to run his > own version, or put his own views on them. > > I'd ask, if I were you. Or perhaps I will. > >> >>  Wikia Inc. >>    200 2nd Ave. S >>    Suite 306 >>    St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 >>    United States >> >>    Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) >>    Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.NET >>       Created on: 03-Jan-07 >>       Expires on: 04-Jan-09 >>       Last Updated on: >> >>    Administrative Contact: >>       Wales, Jimmy  jasonr[a t]bomis.com >>       Wikia Inc. >>       200 2nd Ave. S >>       Suite 306 >>       St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 >>       United States >>       17273886691 >>
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:24:33 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] > I'd ask, if I were you. Or perhaps I will. > Feel free xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:30:35 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Provided Wales, Inc. doesn't use these domains for content, the rego  certainly aids us in projection. It's interesting they they seem to be directly registered by Wales,  NOT by the Wikipedia foundation i.e compare the records to wikipedia. {org,com,net} and mediawiki.{org,com,net} What's unusual is that he hasn't notified us.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 03:31:57 -0800 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- [Deleted by Cryptome.]
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:41:58 +0100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] On Jan 5, 2007, at 12:30 PM, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Provided Wales, Inc. doesn't use these domains for content, the  > rego certainly aids us in projection. > > It's interesting they they seem to be directly registered by Wales,  > NOT by the Wikipedia foundation i.e compare the records to  > wikipedia.{org,com,net} and mediawiki.{org,com,net} > > What's unusual is that he hasn't notified us. Read carefully. This doesn't seem to be related to Wikipedia, but  rather to Wikia, Inc. From http://www.aboutus.org/Wikia.com: "Free wiki hosting from Wikia, using the same MediaWiki software that  runs Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia. Wikia is the rest of  the library.'' Wikia are wiki communities creating free content with the MediaWiki  software. These are hosted for free by Wikia, Inc., the company which  runs the project. Anyone is free to start a new Wikia in accordance  with the creation policy and terms of use. Wikia was founded by Angela Beesley and Jimmy Wales, originally under  the name "Wikicities", in October 2004. It celebrated its first  birthday on November 2, 2005. Wikicities relaunched as "Wikia" in  March 2006 (see the press release for details). News about the site can be found at news and press releases. See also  the reasons to use Wikia, what Wikia is not, and then explore or  browse the site." Seeing this domain being registered to Wikia seems to indicate that  he *IS* willing to help us. We should inquire nonetheless. The email  address for the Admin contact looks valid (Jason Richey). Cheers,
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:40:02 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Wales is attempting to protect his investment. He's businessman before all else, meaning without scruples. Consider his action an attack on WL, perhaps to be followed by others if it threatens his commercial operation of reputation building pretending to be a public service -- like giving out free cigarettes. Spies and cops do that too with leaks and planted incriminating material. One of the happy consequences of WL is that participants will be offered payoffs for inside information, bribes, job offers, fat gov contracts, promises of being allowed into black chambers. Dedicated public service offers those bountiful rewards and few can resist the temptation when presented with alternative consequences of possessing forbidden goods. Not long after Cryptome was set up and got a bit of attention from the authorities a woman called with an urgent request for help get her boy friend out of a jam. Wanted to meet in an out of the way place. Claimed she needed help hiding the guy's computer files before the cops found them. Said he was charged with suspicion of downloading kiddie porn using his mom's computer, had not done so, only adult material, must have been somebody else, or the illegal stuff was buried in the legal without his knowledge. She cried, lots of tears, said she was desperate and terrified of being arrested herself, had no one to turn to, didn't understand computers, could I help, heard about me from someone who read something on the Internet. Sure I said, happy to oblige. God bless you, she said, I didn't know there were people like you. She said she'd arrange to have the data sent to me. I said great, just make sure there's no kiddie porn in it. Nothing ever came, at least not that I could identify. There have been a couple of dozen other such sting attempts, and probably a lot more than that made it past our inept filtering. Could be the planted incriminating material is throughout our archives, ready to be harvested when needed. Some setups of targets run for years, even decades, or indefinitely. Some are leaked to scare potential miscreants. Airing means of suppressing dissent by a slew of tricks is a WL worthwhile.
From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:00:39 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I think JY maybe right -- Wales has scalped it for his commercial  Wiki company, perhaps even automatically.
From: To: Subject: Re: [WL] Wales registers wl.net, wl.com, (others?) [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> I'd ask, if I were you. Or perhaps I will. >> > Feel free xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I have. BTW, the New Scientist person wants to talk to you. Is that possible?
To: From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:57:46 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Fairly sectarian (paranoids) but a couple of good question in the mix: Some obvious questions which spring to mind about wikileaks.org: 1) Are you serious ? 2) Who are you ? 3) How can you be trusted ? 4) Who is funding you ? 5) Why is your website hosted on a Google server ? 6) How is anyone in, say, China, ever going to see it ? 7) How do you prove that you are not working for, or have been  infiltrated  by United States (or other) intelligence or law  enforcement agencies or by political parties or religious cults ? 8) How can document leakers and whistleblowers trust you are not  simply running a honeypot intelligence gathering operation ? 9) Why do you mention a PGP public encryption  key, with some obscure  GPG command line instructions, when your PGP key is not actually to  be found on the major PGP public keyservers e.g. ldap://keyserver.pgp.com http://www.keyserver.net http://pgp.mit.edu/ It can  be found on some but not all of the keyservers via http://www.pgp.net However, having to hunt through multiple PGP Keyservers is  not  exactly user friendly, 10) Why not publish your PGP key on your website ? 11) If you are basing your system on Wikipedia, then how are you  going to solve the problems such as Denial of Service attacks, and  the editing        and counter editing / censorship  warfare which Wik ipedia suffers from ? It is disputable that a Wiki is "easy to use" for "non-technical  people"  - formatting certainly is not trivial, for anybody used to a  Word Processor or even HTML syntax. 12)What are you doing about Communications Data Traffic Analysis ? 13) What precautions do you take to anonymise the sources of your  leaked documents, especially with regard to meta-data in Microsoft  Word or Adobe .pdf files, Microsoft SmarTags, EXIF data in digital im ages, embedded thumbnails in digital images,  characteristic wear  patterns on facsimile or printed documents images, ineptly pixellated  or digitally blacked out redacted or censored parts of documents e tc. ? Your Somali example includes meta data which mentions an easy to  Google name "Captain Weli", which could be a "Joe job" reputation  attack on ex-captain of Somalia National Airlines, Sheikh Mohamed Moham ud (Captain Weli)" 14)Why do you not have an SSL v3 / TLS v1 encrypted version of your  website ? 15) Why should a document leaker or whistleblower use your service,  in preference to, say 15) Why should a document leaker or whistleblower use your service,  in preference to, say a)Posting to a distributed Usenet newsgroup or groups b) Sending a document to http://cryptome.org c) Publishing a video on YouTube d) Publishing their own blog 16) Why will your system succeed, when various anti-censorship  schemes and software projects  such as those by Hactivismo or even  Tor have failed to catch on in a very widespread fashion ?
To: From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 03:13:08 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Disarming. FH along with NED are notorious US State/CIA money launderers.  The goal is not to get them to accept, although that might be rather interesting, but to make them feel we are on the same "side" by the early approach and enemy of my enemy is my friend. Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 6. Januar 2007 02:31:36 GMT+11:00 To: Subject: RE: advisory board inquiry I find your project interesting; however, I would need to get a little more information before I can discuss it with others in the organization.  For example, who is currently involved in the project? Are you affiliated with another organization, or is Wikileaks a new group?  How do you plan on ensuring that the documents posted on Wikileaks are legitimate documents and not forgeries?   I look forward to your reply. _______________________ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Freedom House Website Coordinator 1301 Connecticut Ave. NW, Fl. 6 Washington, DC 20036 tel: 202.747.7017 fax: 202.293.2840 -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:29 PM To: Info Subject: advisory board inquiry Please pass this note around to the relevant good people at FH. WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and discussion. Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and central eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal corruption in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact; this means our technology is fast and usable by non-technical people. We have received over a million documents so far. We plan to numerically eclipse the content the english wikipedia with leaked documents. [http://www.wikileaks.org/] We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:  1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption  2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH  3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members  4. general advice on funding, coallition building and decentralised operations and      political framing These positions will initially be unpaid, but we feel the role may be of significant interest to FH. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ps. Merry Xmas and a Happy New year!
From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:43:44 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hallo xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I believe you spoke to xxxxxxxxxxxx? We can do an interview, but this won't make your deadline. Here are some answers we've prepared for you. I hope you find them useful. Kind Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is WikiLeaks.org? Why "wikify" leaking? WikiLeaks is an uncensorable version of wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. It combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the transparency and simplicity of a wiki interface. Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future. Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the population about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practiced by their government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite facing criminal charges, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon papers shocks the world, exposes the government, and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of lives. The power of principled leaking to embarrass governments, corporations and institutions is amply demonstrated through recent history. Public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions pressures them to act ethically. What official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment through openness and honesty increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most cost effective method of promoting good governance. Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and democratization is greater than ever. WikiLeaks is a tool to satisfy that need. WikiLeaksreduces the risk to potential leakers and improves the analysis and dissemination of leaked documents. WikiLeaks provides simple and straightforward means for anonymous and untraceable leaking of documents. At the same time, WikiLeaks opens leaked documents up to a much more exacting scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency could provide: the scrutiny of a worldwide community of informed wiki editors. Instead of a couple of academic specialists, WikiLeaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability. They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document is leaked from Somalia, the entire Somali refugee community can analyze it and put it in context. And so on. WikiLeaks may become the most powerful "intelligence agency" on earth -- an intelligence agency of the people. It will be an open source, democratic intelligence agency. But it will be far more principled, and far less parochial than any governmental intelligence agency; consequently, it will be more accurate, and more relevant. It will have no commercial or national interests at heart; its only interests will be truth and freedom of information. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, WikiLeaks will rely upon the power of overt fact to inform citizens about the truths of their world. WikiLeaks will be the outlet for every government official, every bureaucrat, every corporate worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information which the institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the world. WikiLeaks will be a forum for the ethical defection of unaccountable and abusive power to the people. How will WikiLeaks operate? To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands. WikiLeaks will also incorporate advanced cryptographic technologies for anonymity and untraceability. Those who provide leaked information may face severe risks, whether of political repercussions, legal sanctions or physical violence. Accordingly, extremely sophisticated mathematical and cryptographic techniques will be used to secure privacy, anonymity and untraceability. For the technically minded, WikiLeaks integrates technologies including modified versions of FreeNet, , PGP and software of our own design. WikiLeaks will be deployed in a way that makes it impervious to political and legal attacks. In this sense it is uncensorable. Who is behind WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers. There are currently 22 people directly involved in the project and counting. What is your relationship to wikipedia? WikiLeaks has no formal relationship to wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology. Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate collective intelligence and knowledge. Both place their trust in an informed community of citizens. What wikipedia is to the encyclopedia, WikiLeaks will be to leaks. Wikipedia provides a positive example on which WikiLeaks is based. The success of wikipedia in providing accurate and up-to-date information has been stunning and surprising to many. Wikipedia shows that the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may produce massive volumes of accurate knowledge in a rapid, democratic and transparent manner. WikiLeaks aims to harness this phenomenon to provide fast and accurate dissemination, verification, analysis, interpretation and explanation of leaked documents, for the benefit of people all around the world. What is WikiLeakss present stage of development? WikiLeaks has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment. We require additional funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as consumers of leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. We have received over 1.1 million documents so far. We plan to numerically eclipse the content of the English wikipedia with leaked documents. Anyone interested in helping us out with any of the above should contact us by email at [insert address here]. When will WikiLeaks go live? We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March 2007. Couldnt leaking involve invasions of privacy? Couldnt mass leaking of documents be irresponsible? Arent some leaks deliberately false and misleading? Providing a forum for freely posting information involves the potential for abuse, but measures can be taken to minimize any potential harm. The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinize and discuss leaked documents. Concerns about privacy, irresponsibility and false information also arise with wikipedia. On wikipedia, irresponsible posting or editing of material, or posting of false material, can be reversed by other users, and the results have been extremely satisfying and reassuring. There is no reason to expect any different from WikiLeaks. Indeed, as discovered with wikipedia to the surprise of many, the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may provide rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and analysis. Furthermore, misleading leaks and misinformation are already well placed in the mainstream media, as recent history shows, an obvious example being the lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of misinformation will find themselves undone by WikiLeaks, equipped as it is to scrutinize leaked documents in a way that no mainstream media outlet is capable of. An analogus example is this excellent unweaving of the British government's politically motivated additions to an intelligence dossier on Iraq. The dossier was cited by Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations the same month to justify the pending US invasion of Iraq. In any case, our overarching goal is to provide a forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice. All policy will be formulated with this goal in mind. Is WikiLeaks concerned about any legal consequences? Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in western administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically, to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions. Is leaking ethical? We favour, and uphold, ethical behavior in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where there is a lack of freedom and injustice is enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing information may embarrass a regime or expose crime, we recognize a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing normally involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, WikiLeaks provides means and opportunity to minimize such risks. We propose that every authoritarian government, every oppressive institution, and even every corrupt corporation, be subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy or freedom of information laws, not even of quadrennial elections, but of something far stronger: the individual consciences of the people within them. On 05.01.2007, at 02:16, Wikileaks wrote: Hello Wikileaks   I just read about your project in the Federation of American Scientists' "Secrecy News" newsletter and was wondering if you could answer a few questions.   If so, here goes:   1. Who is behind the Wikileaks project (although that is probably a very dumb question for an anonymizing service for leaked data).   2. Is this a project backed by Wikipedia?   3. Will Wikileaks vet leaked documents to ascertain a genuine public interest defence in hosting the leaked documents or whether the leak is purely malicious, such as a business plan leaked by a disgruntled employee? If so, who will do the vetting and decide on its "genuineness"?   If you'd rather talk, my number is below. If you don't know New Scientist, it is a science and technology newsweekly (50 years old last November) and we have 2 million print and online readers, half of them in the US.   My deadline is noon Friday GMT.   best regards   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Chief Technology Correspondent | New Scientist | London |   r===================== DISCLAIMER ====================== This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended Recipient\") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. Reed Business Information Ltd. and its subsidiary companies Tel: +44 (0)20 8652 3500 =======================================================
From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:43:53 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hello xxxxxxxxxxxx, here are some notes/answers we've prepared. We can do an interview to if you have time, over the weekend if need be. Kind Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is WikiLeaks.org? Why "wikify" leaking? WikiLeaks is an uncensorable version of wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. It combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the transparency and simplicity of a wiki interface. Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future. Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the population about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practiced by their government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite facing criminal charges, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon papers shocks the world, exposes the government, and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of lives. The power of principled leaking to embarrass governments, corporations and institutions is amply demonstrated through recent history. Public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions pressures them to act ethically. What official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment through openness and honesty increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most cost effective method of promoting good governance. Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and democratization is greater than ever. WikiLeaks is a tool to satisfy that need. WikiLeaksreduces the risk to potential leakers and improves the analysis and dissemination of leaked documents. WikiLeaks provides simple and straightforward means for anonymous and untraceable leaking of documents. At the same time, WikiLeaks opens leaked documents up to a much more exacting scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency could provide: the scrutiny of a worldwide community of informed wiki editors. Instead of a couple of academic specialists, WikiLeaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability. They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document is leaked from Somalia, the entire Somali refugee community can analyze it and put it in context. And so on. WikiLeaks may become the most powerful "intelligence agency" on earth -- an intelligence agency of the people. It will be an open source, democratic intelligence agency. But it will be far more principled, and far less parochial than any governmental intelligence agency; consequently, it will be more accurate, and more relevant. It will have no commercial or national interests at heart; its only interests will be truth and freedom of information. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, WikiLeaks will rely upon the power of overt fact to inform citizens about the truths of their world. WikiLeaks will be the outlet for every government official, every bureaucrat, every corporate worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information which the institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the world. WikiLeaks will be a forum for the ethical defection of unaccountable and abusive power to the people. How will WikiLeaks operate? To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands. WikiLeaks will also incorporate advanced cryptographic technologies for anonymity and untraceability. Those who provide leaked information may face severe risks, whether of political repercussions, legal sanctions or physical violence. Accordingly, extremely sophisticated mathematical and cryptographic techniques will be used to secure privacy, anonymity and untraceability. For the technically minded, WikiLeaks integrates technologies including modified versions of FreeNet, , PGP and software of our own design. WikiLeaks will be deployed in a way that makes it impervious to political and legal attacks. In this sense it is uncensorable. Who is behind WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers. There are currently 22 people directly involved in the project and counting. What is your relationship to wikipedia? WikiLeaks has no formal relationship to wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology. Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate collective intelligence and knowledge. Both place their trust in an informed community of citizens. What wikipedia is to the encyclopedia, WikiLeaks will be to leaks. Wikipedia provides a positive example on which WikiLeaks is based. The success of wikipedia in providing accurate and up-to-date information has been stunning and surprising to many. Wikipedia shows that the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may produce massive volumes of accurate knowledge in a rapid, democratic and transparent manner. WikiLeaks aims to harness this phenomenon to provide fast and accurate dissemination, verification, analysis, interpretation and explanation of leaked documents, for the benefit of people all around the world. What is WikiLeakss present stage of development? WikiLeaks has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment. We require additional funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as consumers of leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. We have received over 1.1 million documents so far. We plan to numerically eclipse the content of the English wikipedia with leaked documents. Anyone interested in helping us out with any of the above should contact us by email at [insert address here]. When will WikiLeaks go live? We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March 2007. Couldnt leaking involve invasions of privacy? Couldnt mass leaking of documents be irresponsible? Arent some leaks deliberately false and misleading? Providing a forum for freely posting information involves the potential for abuse, but measures can be taken to minimize any potential harm. The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinize and discuss leaked documents. Concerns about privacy, irresponsibility and false information also arise with wikipedia. On wikipedia, irresponsible posting or editing of material, or posting of false material, can be reversed by other users, and the results have been extremely satisfying and reassuring. There is no reason to expect any different from WikiLeaks. Indeed, as discovered with wikipedia to the surprise of many, the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may provide rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and analysis. Furthermore, misleading leaks and misinformation are already well placed in the mainstream media, as recent history shows, an obvious example being the lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of misinformation will find themselves undone by WikiLeaks, equipped as it is to scrutinize leaked documents in a way that no mainstream media outlet is capable of. An analogus example is this excellent unweaving of the British government's politically motivated additions to an intelligence dossier on Iraq. The dossier was cited by Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations the same month to justify the pending US invasion of Iraq. In any case, our overarching goal is to provide a forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice. All policy will be formulated with this goal in mind. Is WikiLeaks concerned about any legal consequences? Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in western administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically, to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions. Is leaking ethical? We favour, and uphold, ethical behavior in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where there is a lack of freedom and injustice is enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing information may embarrass a regime or expose crime, we recognize a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing normally involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, WikiLeaks provides means and opportunity to minimize such risks. We propose that every authoritarian government, every oppressive institution, and even every corrupt corporation, be subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy or freedom of information laws, not even of quadrennial elections, but of something far stronger: the individual consciences of the people within them. On 05.01.2007, at 02:07, Wikileaks wrote: Deadline not till next week...xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Reporter Science Magazine 202 326 6446
From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:04:49 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] For ongoing ``social proof'' reasons, we need someone to google out  20-30 news/blog articles with their urls and titles which will then  be incorporated into the home page. Anyone?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:26:45 -0800 From: To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Here are some, see attached file. You probably don't want to include all of these, as some are quite vacuous. [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wlurls.txt
From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:03:34 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] the wl.org front page + blurb is seeing many, many  quotes and  reposts (including of the logo). I understand it was done quickly and  needs thoughtful polishing to have the needed psychological effect.  e.g there is an obvious missing word. Please send in comments /  modification suggestions. A lot of people are requoting/posting/blogging based on this first  page only, and using the ease of ignorance to promote their agenda.  Most attacks are along the lines of "will be used to leak forgeries  etc", which is robustly answered in the faq. This should probably go  into the front page. Thoughts?
From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:33:40 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Can someone volunteer or find someone trustworthy who will to help  update / maintain the current website? In addition we need to rapidly transition the current holding website  into a regular (i.e not wikileak style)  mediawiki website, so it's  easy for all of us to add and correct content, but also for  psychological reasons. Is someone happy to run that on a reliable server they control?
From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:47:28 +1100 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] > Interesting question. MySociety recently released > http://www.commentonthis.com/ - they're a nice bunch, I'm sure they'd > share the code with us if we asked. That's great! Although it needs careful thought about how to  integrate it with mediawiki. I wonder if they'd help integrate it?
To: From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 18:46:09 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Some people may be wondering about the unusual names on this list.  There are xxxxxxxxxxxxx people on this list. Everyone is personally known and  trusted by, or is, the founding group. How much will YOU pledge to WL (in matched pledging or otherwise) for  its next six months of activities? We can succeed at a slower / scale  limited way with under $50,000 / year & volunteers, but it is our  goal to raise pledges of $5m by July.  Smaller pledges can be used in  ways that will generate larger ones, so there's an amplification on  any early contribution. We've noticed at least one blog saying that we appear to be a  stalking horse for Soros. This is excellent and part of our strategy  for division and support. When the media blitz hits next week, we'd  like to make concurrent initial requests to many funding bodies.  Additionally, we have a Davos leak with personal contact details for  all attendees. We need people to: 1) investigate the contraints various funding  bodies place on organizational structures                                      2) write draft letters of  initial approach                                      3) work on a statement of  principals / constitution which                                           will satisfy donors,  confuse and disarm opponents,                                           yet at the same time will  prevent the WL public organizations                                           from being enslaved by the  source of their beads.                                      4) we want to incorporate in  multiple jurisdictions -- where?                                           how will these bodies  relate to each other?                                      5) the people who worked on the  prototype are now                                           completely diverted by  managing the politics.                                           That's ok for a couple of  weeks, but we can not expect                                           the political demands to  return to the level they were                                           before. They need help in  both worlds.                                      6) More work on the FAQ, keeping  up the face of inspiration                                           without antagonism Solidarity! WL
To: From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 19:29:23 +1100 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Fwd from xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: We should be consistent in our use and invention of language. A word  or a phrase extracts meaning from its resonance with other usages and  our experiences.  For instance in the FAQ we sometimes use the phrase  "ethical leaking". Should we always use this phrase? 'leak' by itself  carries a negative. 'ethical' a strong positive. 'ethical leaking' a  positive. But it does isolate 'leaks' as being non-ethical unless we  stick 'ethical' on them. Can we make a movement from this phrase and  others? 'The ethical leaking movement'. Powerful. Can it survive the  heat of our vision? We must find our own 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' s -- blessings and  sanctifications that even our most diseased and demonic opponents  will find themselves chanting to each other in the night. We need a phrases for 'leak facilitator', 'mail drop volunteer',  'ethical leaker', 'wl server operator' etc, etc.
To: From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 06:09:19 -0500 [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] For the coming media storm next week, we need time zone local  telephone contact points, with number (but not name) listed on WL.ORG. In interviews, this just means explaining/interpreting the "official  position" that's written up on wl.org. You always represent yourself  -- someone who's an interested party "on the advisory board", but do  not speak for wl as a whole. If they ask what about X and it's not on  WL.ORG etc, then give can your personal opinion if you think it's  helpful, but re-iterate that you're speaking for yourself. This delegation carries some risks (to wl), but we are in a romance  with journalists hearts; if our voices sweet are not easily reachable  on the phone when their desire and deadlines peek, others voices,  less honeyed but always, always available will replace them. [Names below deleted by Cryptome.] xxxxxx, are you happy to handle the UK? xxxxxx / xxxxxx -- central europe? xxxxxx / xxxxxx us west coast? jya, is there someway we can obscure you for the east coast? xxxxxx/xxxxxx are you happy to handle Tiawan/SEA and Mandarin language  interviews? Lim, do you speak cantonese too? xxxxxx -- africa? xxxxxx / xxxxxx / xxxxxx -- oz/english asia? xxxxxx, are you still busy with your conference?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:58:04 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Announcing a $5 million fund-raising goal by July will kill this effort. It makes WL appear to be a Wall Street scam. This amount could not be needed so soon except for suspect purposes. Soros will kick you out of the office with such over-reaching. Foundations are flooded with big talkers making big requests flaunting famous names and promising spectacular results. I'd say the same about the alleged 1.1 million documents ready for leaking. Way too many to be believable without evidence. I don't believe the number. So far, one document, of highly suspect provenance. Instead, explain what funding needs there are and present a schedule for their need, avoid generalities and lump sums. Explain how the funds will be managed and protected against fraud and theft. Instead, operate on a shoe-string for a few months, best, for a couple of years, establish WL bonafides by publishing a credible batch of documents for testing public feedback and criticism. Show how to handle the heat of doubt and condemnation. Use that to support fund-raising. At moment there is no reason to believe WL can deliver on its promises. Big talk no action, the skeptics say. BTW, the biggest crooks brag overmuch of how ethical their operations are. Avoid ethical promises, period, they've been used too often to fleece victims. Demonstrate sustained ethical behavior, don't preach/peddle it.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:21:34 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Addendum: The CIA would be the most likely $5M funder. Soros is suspected of being a conduit for black money to dissident groups racketeering for such payola. Now it may be that that is the intention of WL because its behavior so far fits the pattern. If fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much higher funding goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies are awash in funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the Congressional spigot wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies, spy contractors, other nation's spy agencies, whole countries, are falling over themselves to tap into this bountiful flood. But competition is fierce, and accusations of deception are raging even as the fleecers work in concert. Chinese dissidents -- a brand name among many -- are already reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US and from the PRC, along with others in the former Soviets, in Africa and South America, inside the US, UK and Europe, in the Middle East and the Koreas, who know how to double-cross ditzy-rich Dads and Moms. In solidarity to fuck em all.
From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:26:00 -0500 To: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Advice noted. We'll polish up our sheers for cutting fleeces golden. > Addendum: > > The CIA would be the most likely $5M funder. Soros is suspected > of being a conduit for black money to dissident groups racketeering > for such payola. > > Now it may be that that is the intention of WL because its behavior > so far fits the pattern. > > If fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much higher > funding goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies > are awash in funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the > Congressional spigot wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies, > spy contractors, other nation's spy agencies, whole countries, are > falling over themselves to tap into this bountiful flood. But  > competition > is fierce, and accusations of deception are raging even as the > fleecers work in concert. > > Chinese dissidents -- a brand name among many -- are already > reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US and from > the PRC, along with others in the former Soviets, in Africa and > South America, inside the US, UK and Europe, in the Middle East > and the Koreas, who know how to double-cross ditzy-rich Dads > and Moms. > > In solidarity to fuck em all. >
[This message was not distributed by the closed wikileaks list.] To: Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org> From: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> Subject: Re: [WL] Funding / who is on this list. Date: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:47:00 -0500 Cryptome is publishing the contents of this list, and how I was induced to serve as US person for registration. Wikileaks is a fraud: [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy.
From: 
Subject: Re: [WL] Funding / who is on this list.
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:36:29 -0500
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>

Heh.

John, please do not do that. If you're wondering about the WL, the  
list has grown and there were enough accidental wl mentions [e.g in  
the somali document and a cc] that not mentioning it became of little  
additional obscurity especially since you're receiving the mail. No  
one has bothered to change the warning which after all doesn't really  
hurt.

Even if you think we are CIA stooges, you can't treat everyone on the  
list that way.