WikiLeaks without Assange or WikiLeaks without Internet?

511004-keyboard-hackNew Orleans   First there was a note that the daily surge of WikiLeaks email dumps had suddenly stopped for two days prompting speculation that maybe Ecuador had cut the internet connects to Julian Assange in his hideout apartment in the Ecuadorian embassy in an upscale London district. Then there was confirmation, including commentary from Raphael Correa, Ecuadorian’s President, that, yes indeed, they had cutoff Assange’s internet access until after the United States Presidential election.

The explanation was short and sweet from Ecuador. Having had long experience with foreign intervention in Latin American elections, Ecuador didn’t want to be accused of having any role with interfering with another country’s election, and that included the current one in El Norte.

Clearly they were also bridling over the argument being made by US cyber-pros and politicians that WikiLeaks was essentially funneling emails in a silent partnership with whatever the Russian name for the KGB is now. Assange undoubtedly has also stepped on some toes with his blatant partisanship and disdain for the Clinton candidacy, while welcoming the sudden surprising embrace of the alt-right wing of the Republican Party and its banner man, Donald Trump. Correa had indicated earlier that he favored Clinton in the contest, though he felt, somewhat contradictorily, that Trump might be so bad that he would be good for the resurgence of left parties in Latin America, making an argument that was extremely hard to follow. At the same time Correa and the official Ecuadorean statements were clear that Assange would still be harbored in the embassy, and they had rescheduled the Swedish interviews on Assange’s remaining rape charge until after the election as well, presumably to allow Assange access to the internet to prepare with his lawyers.

What an interesting turn of events! Now, we’ll see if WikiLeaks is more or less than the sum of Assange’s parts these days.

WikiLeaks claims, likely truthfully, that it has no idea who is sending them these hacked emails, no more than we can name the individuals who are named in our daily spam messages. Computer pros can suss out some clues from the IP addresses in messages, but it would be surprising if these dumps weren’t encrypted and sent through VPN channels making them hard to trace as well. But, surely these dumps are not going directly into Assange’s personal account for goodness sakes. The WikiLeaks website has the ways and means to receive blind data transmissions for goodness sakes, so technically, if they had something, they could continue to merrily attempt to poke their emails in the eyes of US-voters and the candidates.

Maybe despite the internet anarchist reputation of WikiLeaks, we are going to find that it’s really top down, command-and-control. Now we’ll find out if there is anything or anybody really involved in WikiLeaks other than Assange and a close clutch of comrades. There was a time when WikiLeaks seemed to be an organization of sorts that had people who could flesh out their claims to being a journalistic enterprise of a sort. As Assange’s legal troubles increased along with his bizarre efforts to find safe houses and escape extradition to Sweden, WikiLeaks seemed to be imploding around him.

The internet certainly hasn’t been shut down, so we might find out if WikiLeaks is just a one-man band or has a life separate from Assange. Or, alternatively, was there a message to Assange from Ecuador that said not only, “dude, sorry about that internet,” but also, “stop this stuff until after the US election or you are so out of here!” We’ll seen soon!


Time to Make a Deal for Time Served for Assange

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holds a UN report as he speaks on the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London on Friday. (Frank Augstein/Associated Press)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange holds a UN report as he speaks on the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London on Friday. (Frank Augstein/Associated Press)

New Orleans    Remember Julian Assange, the founder and director of Wikileaks that back in the day, you know before Edward Snowden, released a Pandora’s Box of leaked information that brought down governments and exposed some of the nasty little secrets and weird dealings of so-called diplomacy? Well, the United Nation’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has declared that Assange has been arbitrarily detained by the actions of the British and Swedish government over sexual assault allegations back in the day as well. Assange is now better known for having been an asylum seeker holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, than he is for his Wikileaks’ work.

As organizing dictum always holds, you live by the press, you die by the press. Assange a master media mini-mogul in his own right had smartly declared the day before the UN report release that if the Working Group said he was NOT arbitrarily detained, then he would present himself to the British and be done with it. I imagine this was a cheap thrill of a headline since anyone who can mastermind releasing millions of pages of documents outlining the secret activity of governments around the world, certainly would have known ahead of time exactly what the report was going to say. Come on, man!

And, the British and Swedish governments didn’t yawn at the report, finding Assange aggrieved and wrongly restricted, as much as spit at the report and tossed it towards the garbage bin. Both stories were web-lines more than head-lines and virtually buried as footnotes to the news, rather than news itself.

The report actually was pretty clear that the Swedish prosecutors had botched the mess badly. There is still no clear allegation of a crime and in most countries even the accusation would not have necessarily been an offense given the largely consensual nature of the experience according to reports. I’m not sure there’s even a felony charge attached to this embarrassing and shameful mess. The problem, if you recall, is that the Swedes want to question Assange, and stubbornly refused to do so except on their own soil. Assange, convinced he is still on the Most Wanted List in the US, has argued that he would be extradited to the US if he went to Sweden, and round and round the merry-go-round goes. The UN group was clear that this is all past the pale, no matter what anyone’s opinion of Assange might be, and, essentially argue, let’s get on with it!

The press clearly doesn’t think this is news. The governments are just letting the clock run out on Assange until the Ecuadorians get tired of having him as a houseguest or President Rafael Correa loses power, and they can try a do-over.

In the United States it would be time for the lawyers to have a sidebar and maybe take a nolo contendere plea and call the Ecuadorian encampment “time served.” Like it or not, Assange should take the deal and get a life again and do the work. The governments have also made their point about their great power and impunity. Enough said. Let’s move on.


Continuing Relevance of Wikileaks, Assange, and Snowden

JulianAssangeCypherpunksNew Orleans  Contrary to many published stories, the reports of Wikileaks’ death and demise seem exaggerated, and despite the tedium the mainstream media has developed for Julian Assange and his antics, suddenly he seems relevant again, and Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, seems, surprisingly, to have ignited exactly the kind of high level national and international privacy and spying debate that he had hoped to inspire with his info dump.   How did this come to pass?

            Recently I read Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy by some of the team of Guardian newspaper reports about the run-up to the multi-media publication of the original Iraq and Afghanistan documents from Bradley Manning via Wikileaks.  They are not uncritical, but give a semi-objective look at the process and Assange’s motivations and philosophy.  It was helpful to be reminded of the international awards Assange and Wikileaks had won before they kicked the US hornet’s nest for their work on transparency.  There were perhaps too many lurid details on Assange’s Swedish legal problems and sexual accusations, though it was a helpful education on how crimes are defined differently by different nations.  The other book I’ve gone through is Cypherpunks which is a conversation between Assange and some of his hacker colleagues from around the world.  In one great line he calls cellphones “a tracking device that also makes calls,” which recent information seems to confirm.  Reading this book before the Snowden revelations, I would have thought some of their concerns were perhaps true, but overblown, but now they might seem modest compared to what has emerged.  As a footnote it was also fascinating to find that Assange was learning from his buddies information that they had gotten by reading the Wall Street Journal, which he had not realized about the attacks against Wikileaks.  These guys don’t know everything of course and how could they, so why are we surprised that geeks with sometimes less than proficient social skills can also be naïve and left footed on political and organizational matters.

            But, just as Assange gets bottled up indefinitely in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, here comes this Snowden fellow with all of his NSA spying information, and here’s the irony, Wikileaks is back in the mix, because acting as a source for dumps of information from leakers was precisely the reason why Wikileaks was created and the cause it was designed to serve.  Furthermore in a world adverse to conflict, these dudes have proven that they can handle the heat. Say what you may about Assange, he may be running in some stunt for a political position in Australia, but he’s not running for prom queen.   He can carry weight. 

            And, Snowden despite the hue and cry and endless debate that we could all have on tactics and strategy and what makes him tick, had a story to tell that would categorically not have been told without him taking the risk and pushing it out to the world, and, arguably he could not have done so without the battle-tested skills of Wikileaks.

            A story in the Journal tries to use the report of a 2-hour encrypted skype-like call between Snowden and his father to cast aspersions on the motivations of blogger Glenn Greenwald who also facilitated this affair and the fundraising by Wikileaks in support of the Snowden work.   Who knows, but I would be careful about being herded anywhere on this.  Wikileaks’ Sarah Harrison flew with Snowden out of Hong Kong to Moscow and hung with him for 5-weeks in the transit zone in real life not in some Tom Hanks movie, and that shows some organizational commitment no matter how haphazard the organization, and no doubt cost some big time cash as they facilitate Snowden’s asylum, so unless pops is willing and able to pay the whole bill, Snowden, Assange, and Wikileaks seem to be taking some heat for performing a service in a very small niche that turns out to be vital in modern life and politics for citizens trying to live in the new globalism of nation states specializing in secrecy by any means possible.



Justice Going Wikileaks on Middlemen in Payday Lending Schemes

indexNew Orleans  By issuing subpoenas to the financial institutions that are enabling blatantly illegal payday lending schemes and scams, the Department of Justice with provocation from the New York State Attorney General’s actions, finally seems to be getting serious about stopping these predators, largely by picking up a page from the State Department’s Wikileaks assault in 2010.  The strategy is essentially, “if you can’t touch them, then go after whoever is helping them.”

            In the run-up to the first Wikileaks disclosures in the Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, and other publications, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and the State Department with no legal basis squeezed off Wikileaks’ funding stream by convincing PayPal, Visa, and banking institutions to deny Wikileaks access to any ability to receive funds, largely crippling the organization.  With payday lending predators the Justice Department is trying the same strategy but has stronger legal standing since a 1989 act passed during the savings and loan scandals at the time allows financial recovery from banks and other financial transaction processors if there is fraud or other violations

            The back story on this version of payday lending predation is e-commerce gone rogue.  As we have discussed before, 15 states including New York in addition to the District of Columbia, have lending caps on payday lenders while 35 let them get away with wholesale murder.  On-line payday lending has now passed $18 billion in transactions and poaches victims everywhere, including in places where they are barred.  Additionally, and sadly, there are some Indian tribes making a sovereignty argument, that have allowed themselves to be home base for some of these shenanigans, along with “anything goes” states like Utah and Delaware.   This online activity is huge and according to Arkansas-based Stephens, Inc. now is 40% of the total payday lending business.   And, some of this is not payday lending but outright scams promising jobs or delivery of goods that will never happen once the transaction is processed.

            Supposedly, according to the Wall Street Journal, both the Office of the Controller of the Currency and the FDIC are telling their member financial institutions to clean-up their acts and evaluate their relationships as middlemen with these loan sharks and hustlers.  JP Morgan Chase earlier ran from a scandal where they were enabling false charges by larding on numerous hits on accounts with insufficient funds totally thousands of dollars for these shysters.  Chase now claims that it will only hit and charge once. 

            It’s too early to tell whether this is simply drum beating to warn the banks or a serious charge against the bad guys and their ever-so-willing partners in crime among financial institutions, both big and small, but at least if the bugle is blaring, we can finally hope that the troops are coming.


Wielding the Bank Account Weapon to Block Wikileaks and Others


Little Rock   In the current showdown between the National Security Agency and leaker Edward Snowden, numerous accounts are resuscitating interest and attention on Wikileaks and its huge intel drop of 2010.  Part of this is simply a case of Snowden being unavailable to talk, thereby opening up a huge media hole that demands to be filled and finding Julian Assange and Wikileaks happy to oblige.

            Part of the commentary invariably touches on the fact that a US-initiated shutdown of banking facilities allowing for money transfers to Wikileaks is still crippling the organization.  I keep thinking that Wikileaks has solved this problem, but if they have, the patchwork seems not to be holding, and that problem fascinates me.

            Most people do not realize that when they open an account at a bank, that the bank retains the right to terminate that account for any reason or for no reason at all without offering rhyme or reason or any process of appeal or redress.  Sure they have to provide the customer with notice, usually 30 days, and they have to give the customer their money back in a certified check, but that does not mean that it will be easy to open another account.  Banks by definition used to be seen as conservative institutions caring inordinately for their reputations and ability to command public and customer trust.  I realize that large scale banking has become something more akin to a criminal enterprise, but the cultural history still allows banks to cling to these myths from the past.   All of which boils down to the fact that as much as banks are about making the money, they do not want to be involved in any controversy whatsoever making something like Wikileaks or other politically controversial organizations more endangered by this hidden banking threat than they may realize.

            I’m not sure how many nonprofit CFO’s or controllers have intact contingency plans that would allow them access to alternate accounts or banking arrangements if their work was suddenly in the cross-hairs of controversy and conflict or as realistically the craziness of Congress and the polarization of our times.  I suspect most of them have not looked at the Wikileaks problem or similar problems faced by other groups around the world on the simplest of matters in handling their money, but these are real issues that need to be addressed.   I have seen these problems firsthand, and watched organizations scramble, sometimes on their knees, to try and convince banks to handle their business or others to stand in their stead.  It’s not pretty, and it can be fatal.

            Today’s papers may be full of Wikileaks speculation but seeing that a nonprofit election monitoring organization in Russia was suspended by the government there on specious grounds, after having blown the whistle on election irregularities a couple of years ago, note carefully that one of the key punishments was shutting down their bank accounts for the next six months, effectively strangling the organization to death.

             There are a number of watchwords that come to mind in these cases of bank account closures for whatever reasons including “be prepared,” which would be good, “caveat emptor” or “let the buyer beware,” which is what the banks will remind you when you complain, or the common organizing maxim:  “when you strike the bear, make sure you bring it down,” or…be ready for the attack, which would be something good to remember.


Group Finally Stepping Up to Handle Donations for Wikileaks and Others

 New Orleans   A group of folks has finally stepped into the gap and created a nonprofit channeling capacity for donations to Wikileaks and other important, but unpopular groups protecting free speech and guaranteeing more transparency for the public.  The Freedom of the Press Foundation  is pretty much just a “scarecrow” site at its current launch with only a facility to accept foundations for the organization itself, Wikileaks, and several other groups for a fee that is either 8% or $8.00, which is kind of confusing, but regardless, not much of a bite, all things considered.  Furthermore, it allows the contributions to be anonymous to Wikileaks by making the money fungible on the site.   Board members include Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame, John Cusack, the actor, and some other internet transparency, access, and accountability folks.

I say, about time!

In the spate of Congressional “takings” without due process which have included attacks on ACORN, NPR, and Planned Parenthood, rumblings in that direction against Wikileaks and its release of a treasure trove of diplomatic correspondence, PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard all folded like cheap suits and refused to continue to handle donations to Wikileaks.  Others stepped up, but access was difficult and recognition was limited (see earlier blogs) with most of the publicity for their efforts ironically only available through the Wall Street Journal.  Sadly this all happened two full years ago at the end of 2010.  In the old days institutions like the Tides Center in San Francisco would have stepped into the void, but this time the prevailing ostrich mentality kicked into gear in the face of any controversy when progressive institutions were attacked.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation does make a point that your donations will be tax deductible.  I suspect that that has been the whole point of the delay, which is somewhat pathetic in itself.  Cutting off a progressive initiative just for the sake of possible income tax deduction must define fair weather support.  If that is what people have been waiting for then, Wikileaks, freedom of speech and much else is in much greater trouble than we realized.

Let’s hope this is a “better late than never” situation.