Greg Housh says,
he's not a traitor
and he has nothing to do with this
"Anonymous" Initiative
he's not a traitor
and he has nothing to do with this
"Anonymous" Initiative
From the New York Times:
LONDON — The battle lines between supporters of the whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks and its detractors began to form on Sunday, as supporters erected numerous copies of the site on the Internet and the United States put pressure on Switzerland not to offer a haven to the site’s founder, Julian Assange.Doesn't it seem like this Greg Housh guy is a traitor to the United States?
Since several major Internet companies cut off services to WikiLeaks in recent days, activists have created hundreds of mirror sites, Web sites that host exact copies of another site’s content, making censorship difficult.
The collective Anonymous, an informal but notorious group of hackers and activists, also declared war on Sunday against enemies of Mr. Assange, calling on supporters to attack sites companies that do not support WikiLeaks and to spread the leaked material online.
Meanwhile, the American ambassador to Switzerland, Donald S. Beyer Jr., responded to signs that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks might seek refuge in that country, warning in the weekly magazine NZZ am Sonntag that the Swiss “should very carefully consider whether to provide shelter to someone who is on the run from the law.”
On Friday, WikiLeaks sought refuge in a diffuse web of financial and Internet infrastructure spread across Europe, particularly in Switzerland. It moved to wikileaks.ch, a domain registered to the Swiss Pirate Party, a political organization that shares many of Mr. Assange’s aims.
A Swiss-Icelandic company, Datacell, will process donations instead of PayPal, and the WikiLeaks site shows that Mr. Assange is accepting direct donations into a Swiss bank account held with the financial arm of the Swiss postal service.
But that solace may be short lived: a spokesman for the financial arm of Swiss Post, Marc Andrey, also told NZZ am Sonntag on Sunday that it was “reviewing” its relationship with Mr. Assange subject to proof that he has Swiss residency, owns property or does business in the country. A message seeking comment from Mr. Assange’s British lawyer was not immediately returned.
The Internet group Anonymous, which in the past has taken on targets as diverse as the Church of Scientology and Iran, disseminated a seven-point manifesto via Twitter and other social networking sites pledging to “kick back for Julian.”
Gregg Housh, a prominent member of the group, said by telephone from Boston that an orchestrated effort was under way to attack companies that have refused to support WikiLeaks and to post multiple copies of the leaked material.
The Anonymous manifesto singled out PayPal, which cut off ties with WikiLeaks for “a violation” of its policy on promoting illegal activities, a company statement said.
“The reason is amazingly simple,” Mr. Housh said of the campaign. “We all believe that information should be free, and the Internet should be free.”
By late Sunday, there were at least 208 WikiLeaks mirror sites up and running.
“Cut us down,” said a message on the WikiLeaks Twitter feed on Sunday, “and the stronger we become.”
What is the penalty for being a traitor?
20 comments:
Fact: Secrets are hard to keep. Cork out of the bottle. post-it-all 1-to:world. Problem ? Just as much the printed book once was. Main question: what’s next: E-Power to the people. Technology is a thread, it always was.. it always was unstoppable
Anarchism, anyone?
Another fact-- nobody gets charged or tried for treason anymore, especially in America.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death.
Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States.
Nuff said.
AJ,
When the government stops enforcing the laws, the people will begin to enforce the laws themselves, but in a random manner.
I wouldn't want to be Greg Housh.
Gregg Housh was misquoted badly in this NY Times piece, and the online article has already been corrected to reflect that. He is not involved with WikiLeaks or the Anonymous campaign to support them, he has just been involved with other Anonymous efforts (like the Church of Scientology protests) in the past and was asked for comment.
Thanks.
Can you provide a link so we can correct this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/world/europe/06wiki.html
the relevant changes:
"Gregg Housh, who has previously worked on such campaigns with Anonymous, said by telephone from Boston that he had noticed an orchestrated effort under way to attack companies that have refused to support WikiLeaks and to post multiple copies of the leaked material. "
Gregg Housh here, I am no traitor.
I was misquoted in the first version of that story that went up. It was not the reporters fault, an editor decided to change what had been submitted.
The corrected version of the article is up which states very clearly that I am not actively involved in any of this.
Greg,
I will gladly correct this, if you provide me a link and quote which shows me that you deny involvement in this and that you disapprove.
As it is, the quote I'm seeing ("It's amazingly simple, we believe the internet should be free" - a sentiment I tend to agree with, except when it comes to traitorous activity) indicates you are in general support of Wikileaks, and I seeing nothing from you that condemns Assange or his cohorts.
Help me out here.
I dont condemn him. I find it strange that people arent focusing on all the criminal acts being exposed in these cables. All of the outright illegal activities that people in government have taken part in. And with the cables, there is clear and simple evidence of the crimes.
Instead people are focusing on the person and organization that exposed the illegal acts.
That is really sad to me. Everyone should be held accountable for their acts, including government officials. They cant break the law anymore than you can.
I am just not going to take part in the activities because I would prefer not to get in any trouble for acts that the government will find a way to prosecute for (whether or not they are currently illegal or not.)
Greg,
Would you agree that a business has to keep secret their proprietary information/intellectual property in order to compete in the marketplace?
To a degree. But what if that information was (like in the case of The Gap,) "We run multiple foreign sweat shops with horrendous conditions that violate multiple United States human rights laws."
What then?
What criminal activity, specifically, are you charging the government with?
You could start with the easy one involving Hillary Clinton making diplomats spy on foreign diplomats in the UN. Asking for personal information including computer logins and passwords, and even going as far as to take dna samples from them all.
Thats the first easy one that was reported on widely by the press.
Strangely enough this is one of the first times I have agreed with Ron Paul on anything:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/ron-paul-what-wikileaks/
Interesting.
My thoughts on Hilary doing such a thing,
1) not surprising that government finds it important to spy on it's peers/adversaries in other governments
2) Hilary? Wow.
3) probably illegal, but back to #1
Do you think anyone in the world is shocked by this, believes it broke the code of conduct between governments?
You think we ought to treat other governments with kid gloves while our fellow governments are doing all these things to us?
I'm guessing you're with me in assuming other governments are involved in breaching our privacy in the same way, and worse, right?
I'm guessing you are also with me in understanding this is a dangerous/untrustworthy world we live in, and that our living by the boy scout code would mean we'd have to present ourselves with our own merit badges.
I cant actually say you are wrong on any of those points.
And I am with you on #2, Hilary? I just did not expect it from her. There are people I would have expected it from, and just sort of passed over it like "yeah, makes sense."
This is a really tough one for me. On one hand you have the need to keep corruption in check, and the only way to do that is to expose it. On the other you have basically every point you have made. Middle ground exists, but is nearly impossible to reach it seems.
How do you prosecute the corrupt officials, and get rid of people who should be dealt with? If you do it you probably expose other things that maybe shouldnt be exposed.
I just find the situation really hard to quantify when looked at from that point of view.
I also think that sometimes you need to stir the pot to get rid of all the corruption and there will be some collateral damage. How much should be allowable? That is really up for debate.
Ok, so then you have your pov and your function.
It seems to me you are tacitly supporting Wikileaks, by your refusal to condemn their actions. Especially given your standing among the community of people who expose secret materials of powerful institutions.
It would seem to me you have a responsibility to speak as a moral voice within that community. When that community oversteps the bounds of decency, good sense, and gratitude to the nation which protects their freedoms, and contributes much of the innovation that allows your "expertise" to have developed, then it seems to me, you need to speak up.
Your community is a new one, and you are functioning in a wild west environment. It is not surprising that anyone in your community would step over the line, considering there are no formal lines. You are operating in a new moral frontier, and I can respect that. However, I do not respect your remaining silent, when there are new moral nuances to be worked out.
You need to speak up, Greg. You're the man.
If three people organize on anything there are secrets.
If nations can organize by secret agreements to stop proliferation short of war that is a good. If dangerous theocracies can be killed without war via mechanisms like spying at a racist organization, organized by the USA, THAT IS A GOOD. If we are 5% better than other nations WHO FUNCTION UNTRAMMELED BY CONSCIENCE AND CARE then these means ARE justified.
Let's be clear, for the record, Mr Housh, these exposures have damaged free peoples.
When you do the same for the barbaric powers whose lack of western conscience involves a reckoning by disappear you and your family pour encourager les autres, I might give you the benefit of the doubt.
Until then, this is treason to all that is ULTIMATELY good.
But let's face it, if Mr Assange wanted to stop a Nike from operating sweatshops in Jakarta, or Tolucca, then THAT IS ALL WE WOULD BE READING ABOUT, and he would be backed by millions of folks. But he is not, and therefore is not
Post a Comment