U.S. officials deny technical takedown of WikiLeaks
Washington (CNN) -- U.S. officials at the Pentagon and State Department denied Friday knowing of any efforts to take down the WikiLeaks website or asking companies to do so. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/03/wikileaks.takedown/index.html Andrew
On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:45 AM, andrew.wallace wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- U.S. officials at the Pentagon and State Department denied Friday knowing of any efforts to take down the WikiLeaks website or asking companies to do so.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/03/wikileaks.takedown/index.html
Yes, that is what both spokesmen literally did "I am not aware of any conversations by the United States government" - said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. "I am not aware that the Department of Defense is behind any of the problems that WikiLeaks is experiencing," Col. Dave Lapan, Pentagon spokesman. Not the Department, not the Secretary, not the Joint Chiefs, just the lowly old spokesman, all by himself, who is "not aware." A weaker and less convincing denial can scarcely be imagined this side of the divorce court. And the CNN headline, while technical true : U.S. officials deny they are urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks would be more accurate as Minor U.S. officials deny they are personally urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks which would have not nearly had the same punch. Regards Marshall
Andrew
Not the Department, not the Secretary, not the Joint Chiefs, just the lowly old spokesman, all by himself, who is "not aware." A weaker and less convincing denial can scarcely be imagined this side of the divorce court.
And the CNN headline, while technical true :
U.S. officials deny they are urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks
would be more accurate as
Minor U.S. officials deny they are personally urging technical takedown of WikiLeaks
which would have not nearly had the same punch.
Who cares ? we'll know what they actually said/did in the next batch of stolen documents. -J
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html or for anyone who can't speak German: http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2F1012%2F79848.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 (The translation is about as coherent as Sarah Palin herself).
On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html
or for anyone who can't speak German:
http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2F1012%2F79848.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 (The translation is about as coherent as Sarah Palin herself).
Enough already...this is not a political list!
+1 On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Bret Clark <bclark@spectraaccess.com> wrote:
On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html
or for anyone who can't speak German:
http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2F1012%2F79848.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 (The translation is about as coherent as Sarah Palin herself).
Enough already...this is not a political list!
++ Enough already...this is not a political list -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments Disclaimer: http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:24:46 EST, Bret Clark said:
On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities
Enough already...this is not a political list!
However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream.
However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream.
If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching bracelets until your attorney shows up. -J
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:17:30 -0600 Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com> wrote:
However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream.
If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching bracelets until your attorney shows up.
The land of the free; or so you keep telling everyone.
-J
-- John
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 08:17:30PM -0600, Jorge Amodio said:
However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream.
If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching bracelets until your attorney shows up.
And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request. /kc -- Ken Chase - ken@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request.
Except of course when you're "asked" not to share what has occured with anyone. I hear that kind of thing happens today. Adrian
---- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request.
Except of course when you're "asked" not to share what has occured with anyone. I hear that kind of thing happens today.
It does. Hence, the Warrant Canary: http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-canary-in-2010-and-... Cheers, -- jra
On Dec 4, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@creative.net.au>
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request.
Except of course when you're "asked" not to share what has occured with anyone. I hear that kind of thing happens today.
It does. Hence, the Warrant Canary:
http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-canary-in-2010-and-...
Cheers, -- jra
Actually, my intuition is that warrant canaries are not a workable solution either. I would presume that a violation of a 'secret' court order or national security letter where you are expressly ordered not to divulge the fact that you have received it could be violated either by any 'action' or 'inaction'. So the 'inaction' of not updating the warrant canary would be a violation. The interesting thing of course is that to avoid the 'inaction', and your regular process is to say update the warrant canary daily, you would be placed in the position where the government was asking you to lie to the public at large? I have wondered about this for quite a while - has anybody on the list ever talked with an attorney with specific expertise in this area of law about this? I am not expecting formal legal advice by any means, just curious if anybody has done any research on this topic and could share what they discovered. - Mike P.S. - Intent here is not to drag out the wikileaks thread, but rather start a new thread on the more general topic of legal/policies and warrant canaries, which although not a purely technical discussions seems more on-topic for the nanog list. My apologies in advance if it is OT.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of and responce to that kind of request.
Except of course when you're "asked" not to share what has occured with anyone. I hear that kind of thing happens today.
No -- iin the U.S., if you even reveal that you have been served with a National Security Letter [1], you are in violation of the FISA [2] court under the Patriot Act. "Ask" is not the word I would use. Fun stuff, eh? - - ferg [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Security_Letter [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveil lance_Act -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) wj8DBQFM+x6Tq1pz9mNUZTMRArexAJ0QKJZQFSe/ujsUrCqh8nIcBs4rjQCfdJ9U wjHFgjDtIQdJ6exnFkOAyzQ= =Ej/J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:24:46 EST, Bret Clark said:
On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken offline with technical capabilities
Enough already...this is not a political list!
However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access to Wikilieaks, even if you aren't their upstream.
And enumerating some of those thoughts is Lauren Weinstein of Privacy Forum: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000788.html I don't always agree with everything Lauren says, but it seems to me he has this one taped pretty well. Cheers, -- jra
participants (14)
-
Adrian Chadd -
andrew.wallace -
Beavis -
Bret Clark -
Jay Ashworth -
jim deleskie -
John Peach -
Jorge Amodio -
Ken Chase -
Ken Gilmour -
Marshall Eubanks -
Michael DeMan -
Paul Ferguson -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu