whistleblowers: wikileaks, snowden i...

[Prospero]

platina^tm :)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qptZOMEwFXM

[luba]

wl kaze da "nidentified diplomats are escorting former US intelligence operative Edward Snowden in his bid to secure political asylum in a country yet to be disclosed"."He is bound for a democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisors from WikiLeaks.navodno s njim putuje sara harison, jedna od predstavnica za stampu wla.a aeroflot kaze da "a passenger under that name will arrive in Moscow from Hong Kong today on flight SU213, and tomorrow, on June 24, he will fly to Havana on flight SU150. Also tomorrow, he will go to Caracas from Havana on a local flight."na aerodromu u moskvi ima jedno osamstopetsto hiljada novinara, a policija kaze da nema nameru da ga privodi, u slucaju da ima vizu, tranzitnu ili turisticku.a ranije jutros je onaj baja islandjanin sto je vlasnik datacella rekao da je privatni avion spreman da pokupi snowdena.sad sam shvatila da je godinu dana otkako je zulijen u ekvadorskoj ambasadi. jebemti.

[malkin]

čitav jutrošnji meet the press: spektakl. mejnstrim medijima, očigledno, neće biti dosta da napadaju Snoudena, pola današnje emisije je otpalo na nalaženje načina da se Grinvald lično za nešto tereti. bljuje mi se.

[malkin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p62s9d1T8uM

[DarkAttraktor]

cenk je solidno poentirao danas da je sve ovo sto se desava sa Grinvaldom i vladinim stenografima, zapravo umnogome sukob access journalism-a vs investigative jounalism-a.

[luba]

kakav je moron ovaj dejvid gregori, to je nevidjeno. prava slika debilizma u koji se pretvorilo americko novinarstvo. a grinvald je apsolutni heroj oduvek, i fenomenalno je kako ostaje smiren i kul s kim god da prica, za ovih pet-sest godina ga nikad nisam videla da se iznervirao.koga zanima, with liberty... je verovatno najbolja knjiga koja povezuje sve bljuvotine koje se prodaju kao us/zapadna politika, mediji, pravo i slicno.snowden je navodno u vip tranzitu na moskovskom aerodromu, prtljag mu ukrcan u diplomatsko vozilo, a neki patriotski nastrojeni americki saputnici na letu su ruskoj policiji prijavili da je bio na letu. navodno je bacuska samo rekao, nemam nalog za njega, dosvidanja :D

[Budja]

Rand Pol se drzi diplomatski, sto je dobro, s obzirom na sabornost atmosfere:Paul told CNN: "I think it is still going to be an open question with history about how this young man is judged. I do think when history looks at this they are going to contrast the behaviour of James Clapper, our national intelligence director, with Edward Snowden. Mr Clapper lied in Congress in defiance of the law in the name of security. Mr Snowden told the truth in the name of privacy." He said both had broken the law.

[Prospero]

temeljno

On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is Good IdeaÍsafjörður, 21 June 2013.I received an e-mail Tuesday night from the spammiest-looking account I’ve ever encountered that isn’t sending spam. It was a google.com address, and attached were four PDF documents. The body of the mail informed me that Google had received these documents “in a matter pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia”, that Google had provided response documents in compliance with the law, and that under the terms of the disclosure orders I am free to disclose the materials to whomever I choose. Not the most interesting message in the world, you might think. Except, well, you know, the District Court in question is in Alexandria, Virginia. I must confess that I was at a loss for words for a little while. And that’s before I started reading the documents.There were two orders demanding information, and another two permitting the disclosure of the actual orders. The orders are under seal, you see: Secret.The disclosure orders, dated 2 May 2013, state that a non-disclosure order has expired, and thus Google is permitted to give me a copy of both the disclosure order and the original order. They must redact two pieces of information: the address of the email account in question, and the name of the person that provided the asked-for information. Google is, however, allowed to tell me what account is involved, and I can do whatever I want with the information Google gave me. The matter in question, however, remains under seal – so I know they requested (and got) a lot of information about me, but I can only guess (but it’s not a tricky guess) what it’s all about.The earliest of the documents, labelled EC139, is a court order issued under U.S.C. 18 § 2703(d), a provision comparable to data retention requirements in Europe, which requires Google to provide “the United States” (a code phrase meaning whatever prosecutorial office is involved) with metadata records: Names associated with the account, IP addresses that have logged on to the account, when the account has been logged on to and for how long, all that stuff. That’s rather a lot of information, but at least it’s not the contents of emails, chats, calendars, or any of the myriad other things Google accounts are linked to. These kinds of orders have been served on more of the people I know than I really care to think about. A friend of mine – who I incidentally provided with an email account under this domain, for reasons not dissimilar to those I had – was notified of a similar order at the same time I was. That order, however, had been issued a month earlier.All this is pretty much par for the course; I had assumed that I was caught in the dragnet cast around Julian Assange. To have it confirmed with legal documents was more of an impact than I would have believed beforehand, but there wasn’t anything new in it.Enter the second document, SW594. That one is not a a court order, but a search warrant:

This warrant applies to information associated with [redacted] that is stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled, or operated by Google, Inc., a company headquartered at 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA.

That seems a little … broad. But okay, that’s Attachment A, “Property to Be Searched”. What about Attachment B, “Particular Things to be Seized”?

I. Information to be disclosed by Google, Inc.To the extent that the information described in Attachment A is within the possession, custody, or control of Google, Inc., Google, Inc. is required to disclose the following information to the government for each account or identifier listed in Attachment A:The contents of all e-mails associated with the account, including stored or preserved copies of e-mails sent to and from the account, draft e-mails, deleted e-mails, emails preserved pursuant to a request made under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f), the source and destination addresses associated with each e-mail, the date and time at which each e-mail was sent, and the size and length of each e-mail;All records or other information regarding the identification of the account, to include full name, physical address, telephone numbers and other identifiers, records of session times and durations, the date on which the account was created, the length of service, the types of service utilized, the IP address used to register the account, log-in IP addresses associated with session times and dates, account status, alternative e-mail addresses provided during registration, methods of connecting, log files, and means and source of payment (including any credit or bank account number);All records or other information stored at any time by an individual using the account, including address books, contact and buddy lists, calendar data, pictures, and files, and including any deleted information and any information preserved pursuant to a request made under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f);

There’s one detail to notice here: The whole thing ends with a semi-colon. You see, there is a slight difference between the two disclosure orders. Whereas that for EC139 permitted Google to send me a full, albeit redacted, copy of the order, that for SW594 only allows them to send the first page of Attachment B.Even so, what I am allowed to know is that Google has been compelled to hand over all e-mail associated with my GMail account, every shred of information they had on my identity, and anything I’d uploaded to a Google service. It’s a safe bet that chat logs from GTalk are on the next page – I’m assuming those aren’t lumped in with email, although that’s what Google’s own interface does.That’s rather a lot of information. Particularly in light of the fact that I’m not allowed to know why they’re asking for this information. I assume it’s because I had a conversation or a few with a white-haired australian guy, but there’s nothing in the documents to confirm this. Let’s reiterate this, because that’s the point I find the most remarkable in all of this: Because I talked to Julian Assange, all information held by Google relating to my user account with them can be handed over to U.S. prosecutors. Not just the contents of my conversations with Julian. (Over GTalk. Now that’s good OpSec for you. Not.) How is this reasonable? How is this a particular description? How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process.And this is just my Google account. What else did they take — and whose?

[Budja]

Edvarde, nadam se da ces bezbedno doci do Kita. Dobrodosao.

[Prospero]

Budjo, od tebe se ocekuje kvallitetan riport sa lica mesta :)Послато са HTC ChaCha A810e користећи Тапаток 2

[luba]

a tek ako dodje glen sa njim, svaku tacku i zapetu, uz opis garderobe, ponasanja, recnika, sve :D

[Budja]

Na pogresnom sam mestu do naredne subote - u Beogradu.

[Budja]

Inace, ovog puta nece morati da se poteze izvesni novinar Palacios koji bezbedno sedi u Majamiju nakon sto je zatrazio azil bezeci od sudskog gonjenja optuzivsi Koreu za ubistvo tokom policijske pobune 30 septembra 2010 kako bi se Ekvador diskreditovao.Prethodne nedelje donet je Zakon o informisanju cije detalje nisam pratio, ali se opozicioni mediji bune da je jedino sto im preostaje samocenzura. Naime, kazne za prenos informacija i vredjanje, i sam proces cini se slicnim onom u vreme Slobinog zakona o informsianjukrajem devedesetih.

[noskich]

To je ta linija kojom je trebao da se vodi pre: Rusija, Kuba, Venecuela.Kakav Hong Kong, odlicno je prosao sto su ga pustili da ode.

[Indy]

Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin On Friday, two Icelandic activists with previous connections to WikiLeaks announced that they received newly unsealed court orders from Google. Google sent the orders earlier in the week, revealing that the company searched and seized data from their Gmail accounts—likely as a result of a grand jury investigation into the rogue whistleblower group.Google was forbidden under American law from disclosing these orders to the men until the court lifted this restriction in early May 2013. (A Google spokesperson referred Ars to its Transparency Report for an explanation of its policies.)On June 21, 2013, well-known Irish-Icelandic developer Smári McCarthy published his recently un-sealed court order dating back to July 14, 2011. Google sent him the order, which included McCarthy's Gmail account metadata, the night before. The government cited the Stored Communications Act (SCA) (specifically a 2703(d) order) as grounds to provide this order.Meanwhile, Herbert Snorrason received a D-order dated from May 2011 for the metadata and a search warrant (citing 2703(f) of the SCA) for “the contents of all e-mails associated with the account, including stored or preserved copies of e-mails sent to and from the account, draft e-mails, deleted e-mails…the source and destination addresses associated with each e-mail, the date and time at which each e-mail was sent, and the size and length of each e-mail.”Snorrason, according to Wired, helped “manage WikiLeaks’ secure chat room in 2010 but later left in protest in September 2010." The northwestern Icelander confirmed to Ars that he served in this role for "approximately two months in 2010."“Thankfully, neither of us use our Google accounts for anything remotely sensitive,” McCarthy wrote on his blog on Friday.