Scanlyze

The Online Journal of Insight, Satire, Desire, Wit and Observation

Is Julian Assange openly working with Russia?

I saw an allegation today that “Assange is openly working with Russia.”

How is Assange openly working with Russia? It isn’t open if it is happening. And how is he going to manage a covert and undetectable channel of communications when GCHQ is on him like flies on a shitwagon?

The FBI or *cough* US Homeland Security I could see letting something get by them. If you read the nytimes article today about the alleged DNC email hacks you can see FBI knew the server was compromised, talked to a low level contractor on the phone who thought they were just trolls and did pretty much nothing. I’ll bet dollars to donuts it was an ip based phone system using SIP and the dumbass FBI thought that was a good enough and secure way to convey this urgent information when all they had to do was walk a half a mile.

But GCHQ I don’t expect to see that. I don’t see how Assange has a covert channel of communications. Now perhaps they just let him go and watch. But also this ignores the dead drop system by which documents are submitted and vetted and pre-distributed by wikileaks. It is pretty clever and would really want an inside person to break it. Ideally a bunch of inside people because stuff gets split up among multiple people until enough folks have it to form a deadman if the material for publication is intercepted. Point being nobody and certainly not Assange ever sees, talks to, or meets or even exchanges email with the leaker. It is done by good old anonymous physical mail and dead drops. And nothing of that is going to go to Assange in his modern day Elba. Classic tradecraft.

It is true that Assange appeared a number of times on RT. But I had the impression there was little love lost there. That doesn’t prove that Russia was directly sending material to Assange. I don’t see how they could maintain a covert channel of communications in Assange’s current situation and that just is not how Wikileaks works.

It is kind of pathetic that wikileaks tradecraft is so much better than the counterintelligence at FBI. What the hell are we paying for?

Copyright © 2016 Henry Edward Hardy

Scanlyze logo

14 December, 2016 Posted by | computer security, GCHQ, Julian Assange, scanlyze, wikileaks | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Response to “Why Wikileaks is Wrong”

Here is my response to “Why Wikileaks is Wrong” by Amy Bruckman:

Amy, your argument falls by the categorical imperative: if your argument was correct, then any government openness would be bad and all government information should be classified. You are opposing and undermining the very essence of democracy.

“The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.”

–Nils Bohr
quoted in Kantrowitz, “The Weapon of Openness,” in Crandall and Lewis, “Nanotechnology, Research and Perspectives,” 1992

Wikileaks has received the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award and the 2009 Amnesty International Human Rights Reporting Award (New Media).

Please reconsider your analysis in this light. Let’s talk about this.

You quote a five step test for when to whistleblow. Here are my responses regarding the war in Afghanistan and whether or not whistleblowing is justified in this context.

1 Do you believe the problem may result in ‘serious and considerable harm to the public’?

The war in Afghanistan has resulted in 1338 confirmed deaths of US personnel and tens of thousands of Afghan deaths, mostly civilians. The US has conducted and condoned assassinations, secret disappearances and kidnappings, torture and rape, all contrary to US and international law.

2 Have you told your manager your concerns about the potential harm?

In November, 2001 I attempted to bring a written resolution before the Washtenaw County Democratic Party opposing the War in Afghanistan. It was ruled out of order by the chair without being submitted to discussion or a vote.

I went to the Rules Committee to ask for a rule permitting debate on my resolution. I was told, “Henry you can stay but if you open your mouth, if you say one word, you will be arrested and removed by force if necessary.”

3 Have you tried every possible channel within the organization to resolve the problem?

Since 2001, I have attended public meetings, written extensively in my blog, written repeatedly to my congresspeople and spoken to several of them in person. I have stood on a street corner by the Ann Arbor Federal Building holding a sign on many cold winter days, often alone.

4 Have you documented evidence that would persuade a neutral outsider that your view is correct?

There is ample evidence that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, that it serves no strategic purpose, that it is an illegal war of aggression under US and “customary” international law (in particular, the Nuremberg Principles). And bin Laden is not there, he is in Pakistan, protected by our “ally”.

5 Are you reasonably sure that if you do bring this matter to public attention, something can be done to prevent the anticipated harm?”

I am not sure that what Wikileaks has done will prevent the anticipated harm. But I think it will help. I am sure that if nothing is done, the harms will continue and intensify.

Having said that, I myself would not access or release data in this manner, because I think it would be professionally unethical from the perspective of the System Administrator’s Code of Ethics.

Henry Edward Hardy
Cambridge, MA
https://scanlyze.wordpress.com/category/afghanistan/

Wikileaks
Why Wikileaks is Wrong

Copyright © 2010 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

3 December, 2010 Posted by | Afghanistan, Amy Bruckman, bin Laden, civil disobedience, Crandall, Julian Assange, Kantrowitz, Lewis, Nils Bohr, openness, State Department, whistleblowing, wikileaks | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments