Wikileaks domain name yanked in spat over leaked documents | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.com

Wikileaks domain name yanked in spat over leaked documents | The Iconoclast - politics, law, and technology - CNET News.comDeclan does a really good job here of discussing a fascinating case. WikiLeaks is a Wiki based website designed to enable completely anonymous posting of tips and leaked documents. It is focused around enabling disclosure of information from repressive countries.A US court recently ordered WikiLeak's domain name registrar to disable their domain name because of some documents on the site about questionable off shore banking activities by a group of Swiss bankers.The real shocker here is the draconian action against WikiLeaks prior to the resolution of the claim. It is also ineffective action because WikiLeaks is openly hosted under a number of domains in a number of different countries.I am very interested to see how this story develops and whether the injunction will stand up once the details of the offending materials become clear.

Ireland to start broad data retention

It looks like the trend towards wide spread retention of traffic analysis data is spreading to Ireland, one of the last holdouts in Europe. If you want to be protected from this kind of data gathering, you need to take proactive precautions. From the SANS institute:To satisfy the requirements of a European Union (EU) directive,Ireland will begin retaining records of its citizens' emails and Internet chats. While the content of the communications will not be retained, records of the IP addresses of the participants, the time and date of the communication, and the physical size of the message would be stored. The plan would take effect within one month through a statutory instrument in lieu of introducing legislation in Parliament because the country has received notice from the EU that it is three months overdue in implementing a data retention plan. A civil liberties organization has voiced its opposition to the plan as well as the way in which it is being implemented.The group maintains that law enforcement officials will be permitted to access the retained data without court orders or warrants.

Disparate national laws trample privacy expectations

Israel recently forced Google to hand over the identity of a blogger. Declan McCullagh wrote a good post covering the facts of the case. This case illustrates one of the problems caused by the international nature of the Internet. A message, article, or blog post you write (completely legally) in your country, may subject you to prosecution and punishment in another. I am not thinking here of obvious and major crimes such as fraud, child pornography, etc. (and even these are not universally criminal), but rather of more subtle speech and thought crimes.In the United States, the "truth" is an absolute defense in liable cases, while in the UK it is not (lawyers in the audience, please correct me if I am in error here). Denial of the holocaust  is protected first amendment speech in the US but not in much of Europe. Personal sharing of copyrighted materials is legal in many countries, but not the US. Think cartoons of Mohammed, the Satanic Verses, the secret teachings of the Scientologists, pictures of Burmese protests, publishing of Cryptography software. Each of these is legal in some countries and not in others.How can anyone know if their words or actions might be illegal in some country somewhere in the world. 

A question of identity

This article What's In A Name at Design Observer, Steven Heller argues against the use of pseudonyms and anonymity in blogs. He states, but never really argues, that pseudonyms are:

1. Cowardly
2. Deceitful
3. Unacceptable

Despite the fact that I blog under my real name, few may find it surprising that I disagree with his claims. In this age where every word we post will last well beyond our years on earth, one should take great care about posting anything under a real name. I hold very different opinions now than I did when I was young. I would not want to have those thoughts thrown back in my face. Many bloggers hold opinions that run counter to those of their employers. Making strong arguments that might be detrimental to ones employer could well be a "career limiting move". The fear of such retaliation is often much worse than the reality. The chilling effect on speech can be significant. Far from being cowardly, I argue that pseudonymous blogging is simply prudent in many cases.That pseudonyms are deceitful would seem to apply to only a very small subset of bloggers, those who are using a pseudonym that appears to be real but is not and which is masking a true identity that, if known, would significantly color a readers interpretation of the blog. In other words, where the choice of the pseudonyms is made with an intent to deceive. The vast majority of pseudonyms I have seen used are obviously such. There is no doubt that the author is using a pseudonym. The desire to speak from behind a mask is completely overt. In addition to security and privacy concerns, one may well choose to do this to allow the writing and arguments to stand on their own, completely apart from the identity of the writer. For example, in a forum on Israeli / Palestinian  issues, the ethnicity of a posters name is likely to completely overshadow the content of the message. A pseudonym allows the reputation of the blogger to be developed on its own. If the arguments and information are sound, the reputation with grow. Because names are not unique identifiers, the use of a real name (or apparently real name) in a blog may give an unrealistic sense of attribution.I completely support the right of people to create spaces where people must be identified. It is their right to do so, and is completely appropriate and reasonable. It is unreasonable and inappropriate to suggest that this should be imposed on the entire Internet and all communications therein. 

Yahoo seeks to dismiss China case - Yahoo! News

Yahoo seeks to dismiss China case - Yahoo! News This is a really interesting legal case. Yahoo was sued in the US by people representing some Chinese journalists who were convicted in China of violating Chinese law. Yahoo's involvement was to provide evidence from their logs and stored account data. The argument is that Yahoo should have resisted more and provided less information under US and International laws.

The people working for Yahoo in China are in a tough place because they could easily be arrested and held in contempt for failing to comply. Widespread corruption in China would almost certainly lead to extra-legal consequences for Yahoo if they resisted.

One might well criticize Yahoo for designing their systems in such a way as to be vulnerable to such foreseeable attempts to gather information on journalists and dissidents.

I think it is a mistake to trust such potentially damaging information to any company like Yahoo, Google, AOL, etc. International law will be a cold comfort if you are sitting in a jail somewhere. The only real solution is to take control of your own information. Use encryption, and anonymity to ensure that your information can not be handed over.

Google Wants Shareholders to Permit Censorship

CIO.com - Business Technology Leadership - Google Wants Shareholders to Permit Censorship Following up on my earlier post, it is hardly surprising that Google is not in favor of this shareholder initiative. In all fairness, it would put them in a very difficult and competitively disadvantageous position.

I will be at a conference on censorship circumvention in the UK in late May, so I should have more information and insight about this issue soon. It will be good to get outside the box and talk with others who are fighting this good fight along side Anonymizer.

Countries continue to try to tighten their grip on the Internet

Thailand Continues Internet Crackdown - WSJ.comChinese President wants to tame Internet and spread party line

Many countries are continuing to try to exert control over the information available to their citizens. Changes in technology are forcing them to adopt new solutions to keep that control.

Traditional media (Newspaper, Magazine, TV, Radio) all have a local nexus of control that can be influenced by the government. Station managers, reporters, and editors can all be threatened or arrested to control the content of those media. For a media to be safe from influence, it must be generated and disseminated entirely outside the country in question.

The Internet is perceived as the greatest threat by restrictive governments because it enables on-demand access to information, offers much more depth than broadcast media, and two directional communications.

To minimize public backlash, these governments are presenting their censorship as protecting their citizens. In Thailand they are protecting the honor of the king and country, while in China they are preventing immoral or ideologically impure content. This is all just so much white wash to cover the effort to control the populace by controlling what they know and discuss.

Anonymizer, currently provides anti-censorship services at no cost to the people of Iran (supported by the VoA) and China (on our own). We are planning to protect the people in a number of other countries in the future. Many other organizations are also providing such solutions, creating a vibrant ecosystem of solutions which will be much harder to stop than any single solution.

It is critical that privacy organizations, as well as content providers and portals like Google, work together to actively oppose the efforts of these governments to restrict free speech and access to information on the Internet.

Historically short wave radio provided a way of getting information into a country. It was sometimes subject to jamming to keep it out. These days, almost no one listens to short wave, so its impact is minimal. Many national short wave services have been drastically reduced or eliminated.

Satellite TV can also be effective. Many countries try to limit private satellite dish ownership, however this tactic has proved to be difficult to implement effectively.

Mixed feelings about Whitehouse use of outside email accounts.

I have been following a number of stories like this,Congress Follows Email Trail - WSJ.com, about the Whitehouse use of RNC controlled email accounts to discuss the firings of federal prosecutors. The law appears quite clear. Official Whitehouse email is a document that must be retained. Discussions of firing federal prosecutors sounds official to me. Therefore the Whitehouse was wrong to use outside email addresses to keep the discussions secret. I am not comfortable with the law in the first place. Email and other electronic communication media like chat and IM are often used more like casual conversation than formal memos. Few would argue that the President's every word should be recorded at all times. It would make discussion and debate next to impossible. In the process of thinking through an issue one may consider many potentially unpopular ideas, if only for the purpose of argument. Free and unconstrained give and take generally leads to be best understanding and decisions. Free and unconstrained debate can not take place with the world looking over your shoulder and scrutinizing every word.

If we accept that email and chat are used like conversation to hash out ideas, then it is very damaging to the process to place heavy recording and monitoring requirements on it. At the same time, having no oversight substantially reduces accountability. It might even facilitate corruption.

This really shows in a microcosm the greater question of general communications privacy vs. law enforcement access. It is a hard balancing act because there is very little middle ground. Basically you are either monitored or not. Having monitoring of a random half of the messages is going to make everyone unhappy.