Archive for January 2011
Article orchids on bullshit ground. Some say, BS always was a good fertilizer. Others answer: cowshit always worked, too. About Wikileaks bitching around recently on twitter and about Guardian entering the bestseller fight arena.
[apk for wn030 – January 31, 2011, with updades.]
Let’s make it short. When in between of the fight for freedom in Egypt, in between news about Egypt’s unwanted “President” building a not-imagined before information wall against the rest of the world – about news able to let you lose your breath everyday (from closing of pages like facebook and twitter, pages being used by journalists, too – to an entire internet shutdown, to SMS shutdown (SMS being sent by journalists, too), to foreign journalists reportedly being held in hotels, to arriving AlJazeera journalists being sent to the airport, to reports of violence against journalists [reporters injured by police], to a shutdown of a station [AlJazeera] to arrests of reporters and seizure of equipment]... when in the middle of indeed important news and calls of AlJazeera to bloggers for help – a spokesperson somewhere in a warm and cosy bulding*** is starting to bitch about a sentence not being entirely read by himself, you may well have reasons to be a bit more than just halfway to exploding.
Yesterday night in Europe experienced such a moment. Lots of followers of the official wikileaks account were – in the middle of their own work – suddenly interrupted by a 2-tweet-nagging that we can call a Julian nagging, accoding to the attacked Guardian journalist who replied and noted that exactly this official account was hardly used by anybody else that night.
So, what exactly happened? Julian hinted at an article published on the Telegraph webpage on 30 Jan 2011 at 5:59PM GMT. The wikileaks spokesperson wrote his concerns regarding “Guardian names Manning as source” linking to the mentioned Telegraph article. Due to the 140 chars frame of twitter, we can only hope that the telegram style with a misquote was just a result of the twitter structure. If at all, we have to speak about 2 Guardian journalists naming Manning as what? According to the Telegraph newspaper, as the “alleged” source. Here’s the article quote, 2nd paragraph:
“The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, of The Guardian, name Specialist Bradley Manning, the soldier being held in a US military jail, as the alleged source of the information which was passed on to The Guardian by WikiLeaks.”
So, what’s the problem, you might ask, so far this is nothing new to anybody following the case. Two Guardian journalists are not the “Guardian”, we might reply to Julian and alleged is an important word not forgotten by the telegraph. The article, describing the book of David Leigh and Luke Harding (thus, helping them a bit to reach the next bestseller list, something Julian of course right now is a bit touchy about, while his own book is as much in development as Daniel’s debut work as an author**), lists facts that are indeed no news to people following the Bradley Manning story since it started (re start: see the very last lines of this complement entry and re development of the case see Manning updates here). Still, what to think about Julians distracting two nighttweets? Tweets wanting to raise some attention at the book, before his own one hits the tables? (regardless of rumours about Julian’s book being written by ghostwriters – let’s still call it his own one, as long as we don’t have real proofs about an author work misuse by WL in our hands than just some rumours spread by the other leak gang after the clash – a strategy that both gangs in quarrel widely use these days. Update: no, there are reasons to assume this is not just a rumour…). So again: what is this about, pure raising of awareness, attention gaining, some showfight-rant-advertising help for a book before his own one – [or if written by other writers, then hopefully not naming JA as the “author” <- update regarding this question) – before his “own” one arrives in the shops? You shouldn’t exclude this sideway-consequences, of course readers will expect a reply when the expected next bestseller is there. They will pay for the reply if curious enough, so of course some ranting here and there will finally work fine as an upfront extra ad for the awaited bestseller candidate book title.
Just all this, awareness raising before the book-run Julian-Daniel-Guardian, the bestseller-chase really starts, sure? Becalmed, we could impassively come back to other, more important topics if there wouldn’t have been some unexpected replies from one of the attacked authors, David Leigh, himself. In order to let you take a look at them yourself, please feel free to click at this storify sample where wn030 collected some important reply quotes of David Leigh.
On Jan 31st, at 0:23, David Leigh surprised with the following charming reply content and tone: “@wikileaks absolute pack of lies against the Guardian. Manning not our source. Who says “free Bradley” on their logo?# Wikileaks does”. From the “pack of lies”, we can easily conclude the Guardian journalist is heating up a bit. From the 2nd sentence, however, it gets visible that the book will hardly be worth a deeper looking review. If the entire book follows the same thorough arguing as this 2nd sentence, we can perfectly cancel “Wikileaks: Inside / Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy” from our watchlist of possible bestseller top hits. Some former incredible crazy claims spread on the twittersphere by diverse people – claims that money help might be regarded as an “admitting” of Bradley as source – were hard enough to watch and to stay patient. Although these claims may not have been the only reason for the awkward delay of Wikileaks’ legal help donation to the Manning support network (see more about the delay in the middle part of this complement entry), everybody who took part in these flat, stupid and greedy looking self-justifications should simply learn to think before logging in into his/her twitter account. But David’s second sentence here is just too much for being called a gaffe. When a Guardian journalist regards support – in this case, via a small graphical addon, an account avatar sticky, needed and as for the support itself, long awaited given that it took the Wikileaks spokesperson himself quite a long while to accept his co-responsibility for Manning, a responsibility existing absolutely regardless of the fact whether Bradley was the person who submitted the material or not and absolutely regardless of the fact that an upfront link between them can be perfectly excluded (update regarding this, july 13th/14th 2011) – so, if this Guardian journalist regards an avatar sticky as an “evidence” for a “source” – then let’s forget about the book, we can perfectly expect the same journalistic “thoroughness” from this author part.
Article orchids on bullshit ground (and cowshit, of course, in order to stay politically correct and to emancipatedly “genderize” where appropriate). The first orchid got visible just a few hours later, an article reply by x7o. The original form of this orchid was ready at an unknown hour and previously posted on wl-central, a wikileaks supporters platform, copied to freshhorse due to a short wl-central overload after the wikileaks account spread the link to this orchid reply via twitter. Let’s assume some other word plants will follow earlier than expected.
But in the meanwhile, let’s return to the small “showfight theory”. Of course, there are no reasons at all for anybody, neither any spokesperson on earth nor for any Guardian reader, to expect or fear so-called “loyality” from a newspaper. “Loyality” is simply not what newspapers are for, originally, neither regarding governments, nor regarding companies, nor regarding networks like Wikileaks or their spokespeople. The argument that the same newspapers are publishing material they got from Wikileaks is no argument at all. Newspapers – like any other older or newer media as long as they feel committed to journalism – have other duties, being contrary to any “loyality” expectation. Thinking about it in a less emotional moment, Julian would have to admit to it either, given that his approaches to achieve official status as a Journalist are for real. Will realizing this fact – the fact that no contract on earth will turn a medium to a “loyal” one – be able to make him rethink his decision to turn to “exclusive” contracts, a decision that made Wikileaks less and less recognizable as the platform it originally was? We think: hardly, at least not yet.
But what does it tell us about where the Guardian is aiming at (aside of aiming the bestseller list)? A newspaper like the Guardian might – in their coverage of the Wikileaks saga – have other reasons for a careful positioning than “loyality”.
Let’s remember for a moment what the platform originally was. It made access to journalistic raw material accessible. While being published and available (before Wikileaks turned to “exclusive”), it made something quite interesting possible. Suddenly, for a short moment (until “exclusivity” showed up), the accessible material made a fair competition between workers in the media universe possible. Suddenly, it was not the question how large your network is, how much your network can afford – but the quality of your own work – both regarding research as well as text style quality – your work as a journalist decided over the quality of your result, the material coverage. In the very same moment, allowing for a quality comparison not only between journalists themselves but between the media, a quality based competition between old, new, established and free media platforms and networks. An extremely interesting moment in the Wikileaks history, now gone (although, at least in Germany, we should keep our ears open as for how long this will be the case, we expect a media debate about this exclusivity problem in March).
So while other media have acually indeed no reason at all to bother what will happen to the platform or its spokesperson since it lost its status as a potential raw material provider for them – what exactly is Guardian’s positioning telling its readers about the logics inside the editors’ staff nowadays?
You as a reader might in this moment have the wish to interrupt: positioning about Wikileaks? What has Wikileaks to do with it, we are talking about Guardian showing unprofessionalism re the Bradley Manning topic, why Wikileaks? My answer would be: simply because this is not the first showfight between Guardian and Wikileaks, it’s just another fraction of an ongoing battle, at least from the readers’ point of view. Many Wikileaks followers are debating these two nighttweets even days later with referring to the Guardian publishing police reports of the Swedish case. At which point returning to a sentence above might get replicable: what exactly is Guardian’s positioning telling their readers about the logics inside the editors’ staff there? While other media have hardly any reason to bother, for Guardian this is attacking one of their valuable raw material providers with a bending down to the level of the Expressen or the German BILD.
While respecting their duty to stay illoyal (to any official body, network, government, company, lobby) is in general an extremely valuable turn – this bending down here, a handshake with Expressen, is indeed proving that some journalists there forget about a simple and tiny but maby worth reminding problem behind: as soon as the media [Guardian included] lose platforms like Wikileaks, after these platforms have shown and proven their relevance for the media landscape, their importance for a return to work that can call itself journalistic again – especially in times when pure cheap PR work is more and more jeopardizing this profession – as soon as this happens, they [Guardian included] will be simply redundant. Careless cooperating for the aims of cenzoring bodies, i.e. raw material destroyers while cooperating on a bottom-feeding yellowpress level is working on their [Guardian included] self-destruction as a whole.
** Daniel – as a puterexpert – is the story teller in this book. The text was written by a Zeit author. For a computer expert, acually a perfect decision. (There is an update regarding this.) But for someone who wants to be described as a “journalist”, as observed in the case of JA in the last weeks, this will be quite something else. Not few working on the network prefer and propose to stick to “spokesperson and editor” and in fact this is exactly our proposal, too. We just want to hint at the fact that the book of JA – in progress – a book that will quite for sure be also a book written by a ghostwriter (see comments below for the 3rd confirmation, 1st ones reached the public by reports of former WL network coworkers [not Daniel] – that in this case the public may react to the ghostwriting a bit differently. See the GuttiGate for just an idea of the wind that may reach WL in case the book does not name the real author of it and for the case JA still asks for being named as a Journalist.
Workers in the network explain this is needed in order to help the USA gov to realize they are messing around with an online publication platform. This is no explanation at all. The fact that it’s hardly possible to describe WL as something else is simply too obvious for anyone who managed to read a newspaper with WL topic in the last months and it will be hard to find a web user who didn’t. Editor (and spokesperson) is absolutely enough as a help for the US gov to finally realize what exactly they are actually trying. There is no reason at all to call sb. a Journalist without enough work in the public in order to judge it and say thumb up or down. We have not seen an article list of articles written by Julian. We also have not read other publications by JA. And a “Journalist” who needs a writer in order to write “his” book is like a GP who needs his secretary to dictate him the diagnose. Talking about “Underground” : he knows fairly well that he was described as the researcher for this book (regardless of the question whether being involved as one of the protagonists or not – we are talking about the writing work). Researcher: this is an assistant job. You just don’t jump up from an assistant to a journalist without a single own text online. And in case of the Wikileaks page: we see what we see as WL work, the work of – the network. That’s one of the reasons why we – so far – would not question the function of WL as a journalistic platform, publishing raw material for journalists plus the interested public – and some work done by the network in order to present them. (We – btw – have no idea whether the network as a whole is happy with the danger of WL turning from this function to the function of pure infodealers [via exclusive contracts]). But back to the journo role: show us the article list and we’ll talk on about it. With the background of the role as a spokespip at WL, this might even have been possible: it was and is a spokespip role, but it was and is a spokespip neither for a gov nor a comp nor a lobby circle but for a journalism related platform, so the rule PR=/=Journalism [which usually forbids a switching between them, regardless of how long ago someone worked in the other lake and is a rule for the mentioned cases] does not apply here. But: without an article list with articles written by your own there’s no chance. Since you decided not to prove your journalistic writing skills in the book but preferred to work with a person having the skills for that, we understand that you understand that this is the proof that your roles as editor and spokespip are absolutely enough. Anyway there’s enough to do with these two responsibilities, isn’t it?
… interesting. regarding the “auhorship” question, now suddenly there is an
regarding this book, we’re actually talking about a CO-AUTHORSHIP, in opposite to the assumption of a firedoglake author, but – we’d say, so far, this is at least something. let’s see.
… and guess what, regarding the topic “arena showfights between Guardian journo twitter accounts and the WL acc”, there is an update, too: Dec, 2012
Link 1 (Malala vs Manning, about the twitter showfight on Dec 12, 2012)
and don’t miss
Link 2, too (discussion)
(regarding the topic “Malala vs Manning”, tweets from December 10th, 2012 – the incredibly poor Guardian article re Manning winning the Guardian Person of the Year poll and the even more poor reaction to this by the person tweeting from wikileaks’ main twitter account)
And now hold your breath: there is even another UPDATE, also December 2012, regarding those missing own articles mentioned in the text above and further discussed in the comments section of this page:
Articles with an author finally show up online (link to the text “Two Years of Cablegate as Bradley Manning Testifies for the First Time” by J. Assange, posted on Huffington Post, according to the page on Nov 29, 2012, and sent out via email on Dec 12th) – Comment to this text: it looks fine and it definitely looks like an acceptable article. Research help done by the network as well as other text editing steps like proofreading (checking for typos) are typical parts of the workflow – however, in case facts ever shop up proving that parts of this article were -written- by other people than the signing author, there might be rasons for a real shitstorm on the websphere. Let’s hope this will never be necessary.
*** re the “warm and cosy building” – note the date when this text was written. This was written when Mr. Exclusive was dining in a luxurious chateau. The expression in this sentence does not refer to the current situation (2012) in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
wn030: sadly, however there is another update necessary.
January 3rd, 2013.
x7o, the account mentioned in the text above, has proven to be what the person probably calls erm… “logical”. namely, while defending the repost of nazi content and links to a right wing populistic paper, x7o calls us – the account hinting at this issue – what? well, “extremist”. yes, you actually heard that right. we really loved that. it would have caused an overwhelmed, bright laughter if the issue itself was not as serious as it sadly is.
Egypt: Ongoing protests against Mubarak’s government in Cairo, Suez, Alexandria, number of killed protesters rises. Updates January 26th-Feb4th 2011 (including Internet cutoff, press rights breach, Mubarak’s sons seem to finally have arrived in london (29th) and +++EIL+++ AlJazeera reporters arrested (Jan31st)
[wn030] Egypt: Ongoing protests in Cairo and Suez, next killed protesters reported. Jan26 2011, a follow-up to our coverage yesterday.
In order to allow for a faster reporting and communication, we decided on Jan 26th to turn to storify for our today’s report. Please click here for Jan26th. Following days linked a few lines below.
The voices you’ll see after the click belong partly to reporters from CNN and BBC, to media (AlJazeera, almasryalyoum.com [English edition], democracy NOW!), media content mediators like demotix, news agencies incl. AP and Reuters, and – above all – to Egyptian citizens.
Update. it’s past midnight now. we close the reporting for jan26th. The red link above will now – due to the amount of attached voices – take a while to open. A screenshot of this page, opening quite fast, is available here. You can check it out and if you think the links there might be worth opening the page in spite of the loading time, you can still take the red link above.
For Jan 28th updates, click here (Egypt cuts off internet, SMS, mobile. full blackout, according to analysis “unprecedented in Internet history”, Friday protests, replies to Mubarak’s late night speech.) (closed, it’s midnight 28th->29th. click here for a quickly opening screenshot, the first link will open a larger file with working links.) (ps you can really click the screen snapshot link, we repaired it now.)
for Jan 29th updates, click here. (Ongoing protests, +++EIL+++ Mubarak’s sons seem to finally have arrived in London – rumours about “flight” spread in media since 25th. this time, it seems these news are for real.)
For our Jan 30th 2011 update, please click here. (AlJazeera shutdown)
Jan 31st updates are here (AlJazeera reporters arrested, after release: their equipment still seized. SPIEGEL: AlJazeera bittet blogger um Hilfe)
Feb 1st updates: here (news agency Associated Press knees down in front of the Egyptian despote [see updates 16.00-17.00], the March of Millions, reactions to Mubarak’s speech)
Feb 2nd updates: click here.
For the Feb3rd updates, click here.
Feb 4th updates are here.
Feb 5th updates are here.
Feb 11th. done. Mubarak is gone. It took the Egyptians 18 days to force him to finally step down. Deep congrats – –
Here below a video we’ve chosen for this page.
NancyAngela helped us and provided us with a written version of the voices you hear in the video:
“First man (Corrected his grammar a bit): ‘It’s very bad for my government. I don’t have food, I don’t have anything, Me and my my children we will die today. Second: We will not be silenced, whether you are Muslim or Christian or Atheist, you will demand your God damn rights. We will have more (our) rights, we will never be silenced – 3rd: There this terrorism for you. 4th:this is my blood.”
A telephone number that needs spreading around:
Feb 4th 2011:
“Talking on phone, waving flag, maintaining balance. Business as usual in Tahrir” (Cairo)
The protesters’ 7 demands: (translation below picture)
Translation – The 7 Demands of The Tahrir square Protestors: (source of translation)
1. Resignation of the president
2. End of the Emergency State
3.Dissolution of The People’s Assembly and Shora Council
4. Formation of a national transitional government
5.An elected Parliament that will ammend the Constitution to allow for presidential elections
6. Immediate prosecution for those responsible of the deaths of the revolution’s martyrs
7. Immediate prosecution of the corrupters and those who robbed the country of its wealth.
Here’s another shot of this huge banner (sharper and better overall quality, worth a click).
feb 11th: Mubarak finally steps down. time to rethink how this all actually worked. without the people on the streets nothing would have happened, but the need of access to social media and their important role in this revolution is not questioned anymore. here a nice infographic about the network of twitter accounts involved in spreading news from Egypt:
[wn030 jan 25th] newsflash. Just as we are following the news about protests breaking out in Egypt with tens of thousands people on the streets, we get several confirmations about Twitter being blocked, according to recent tweets not the only web service blocked assumingly by the Egyptian government. Online news services are said to be among the blocked web pages, too.
The protesters are concerned about this reportedly large number of people on the streets getting no attention by news agencies and broadcasts yet. The only larger station so far that started reporting is Al Jazeera.
In order to jump in into this gap, until the larger stations start reporting, here is our sample of recommended links in order to follow the Egyptian protests:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/01/25/egypt-tweeting-the-day-of-revolution/ — http://ht.ly/3JQXE (A page where you can Post Arabic tweets, links, updates on #jan25 protests in Egypt for translation into English) — live update ahram.org — Protesters take over Tahrir Sq (incl pic: Mubarak poster taken down) — Re Blocking twitter: Egyptian authorities block twitter as protests in Cairo increase (businessinsider.com) — PressTV: Protesters clash with police in Cairo — indymedia.org.au: Egyptians reclaim the streets demanding to be rid of Mubarak — French report re blocking twitter and Egyptian online cenzorship — TechCrunch: Twitter is blocked in Egypt amidst rising protests — online.wsj: Thousands in Egypt join antigovernment protest — netzpolitik.org: postet um 18:42 trotz Twitterblockade der ägyptischen Regierung überraschenderweise mit dem Titel “Twitter-Revolution in Ägypten?” – adnkronos: Egypt – President’s son and family ‘have fled to the UK’ – upi.com: Water cannons greet Egyptian protesters – salon.com: Egyptians denounce President hosni Mubarak, clash with riot police – tvo.org The Agenda – behind the Hedalines: Egypt on the verge? (recommended link,with 4 embedded videos)
Timour Chafiks tweet sample from today via storify (recommended sample)
Recommended photo album where the account owner collects pictures from the protests:
Recommendeed link for anyone in egypt who cannot access twitter due to the blockade:
2nd bypass hint: use http://220.127.116.11/ for Twitter in Egypt
3rd hint: A usefull way to bypass firewalls, regulated services and websites: https://9000tunnels.appspot.com/
hint nr 4: How to log in into blocked Twitter in Egypt
collection of tips to bypass: #jan25 blogspot
update: and a new bypass solution, using Dabr pass, finished on jan26
Another tip for foreigners in Egypt to circumvent the blockade: “if you have a linkedin.com account you can tweet from your status. no need to use twitter directly” (hint sent via twitter) (we’re waiting for a confirmation whether this indeed works, whether these status updates are indeed reaching twitter. if it really works, for foreigners being in Egypt and needing a quick bypass, this may a solution Egyptian protesters will however have to be careful which data to enter into their profiles if wanting to use this bypass.) – update feb26th: we have an update now regarding this. no, when twitter blocked, it will be hardly possible to circumvent via linkedin.
update. 5pm gmt+1 news agencies and larger media networks start reporting
CNN: Thousands protest in Egypt — guardian.co.uk incl. Reuters video — guardian was and is frequently updating on this page — AP: Thousands of anti-government protesters, largerst protests – largest demonstrations in years — BBC News: Cairo Protest: Police use tear gas on “day of revolt” — Germany: SPIEGEL – Massendemonstration gegen Mubarak — Los angeles Times: Egypt – Thousands of Egyptian protesters clash with police(critisized by readers via twitter for lowering the number of protesters. Probably counted in a part of the protest places only.) — Focus (Germany): “Bei einer Demonstration gegen die ägyptische Regierung ist es in Kairo zu schweren Ausschreitungen gekommen…” — Zeit.de (Germany): Ägyptens Polizei setzt Tränengas gegen Demonstranten ein — Reuters Africa (from Washington): US urges restraint, Hillary Clinton believes the government of Presiden Mubarak is stable — BBC News: ‘Of course I am inspired by Tunisia – Egypt activist – Reuters.US: Thousands of Egyptians demanded an end to Mubarak’s 30-year rule – guardian: Photo gallery “Anti-government protests in Egypt” – Al Jazeera photo album: In pictures – Day of anger – Reuters.US: Teargas, water cannons disperse Egypt protests – BBC News: Egypt protest: Three reported dead in “day of revolt” BBC reports 2 killed protesters (sources: doctors in Suez) and one dead policeman (source for this: state TV) — Three Egyptian died in anti-government protests (haaretz.com) — Egyptians denounce Mubarak, 3 killed (yetnews.com) — Tagesschau (German TV): Drei Tote bei Massenprotesten gegen Mubarak — ulz/Reuters/dpa/AFP/SPIEGEL: Tote bei Protesten gegen Mubarak
Update 5:30 gmt+1. Police reportedly starts firing rubber bullets in Alexandra, not just tear gas here: “RebeccaAHopkins -Twitter, much mobile access down in Egypt. Rubber bullets reportedly fired on protesters in Alexandria. #Jan25 #Egypt” – Alshaheeed “Police in Alexandria Egypt open fire on protesters. Live ammunition. Our correspondant has been hit with a bullet in his head. #Jan25 #Egypt“, which was corrected shortly later as hit with rubber bullets: Alshaheeed “Correction..Bullets fired in Alexandria are actually rubber bullets. Our correspondant was hit with rubber bullet not live bullet. #Jan25 ” – 7:30pm: bencnn reports: “6 troop carriers deployed next to #Egypt TV building in Maspiro, more police on the way. #jan25“
Re size of protests – twitter estimates. @elmasry counts in #Egypt protests: 30k in Alexandria, 50k in Cairo, 6k in Mansora, more in Aswan, Qina,A rish, Mahala. No media coverage! #Jan25 (wn030: this would sum up to probably around 100.000 people in total)
7pm gmt+1 kurze zusammenfassung von twitter-nachrichten der letzten halben stunde: Via twitter werden ansässige in Kairo dazu aufgerufen, ihre wlan-anschlüsse freizugeben, es wird um warme decken gebeten und berichtet, restaurants und imbißbuden würden derzeit essen umsonst an die protestierenden verteilen. Es wird berichtet, einzelne polizisten hätten ihre uniformen ausgezogen uns sich den protestierenden angeschlossen, diese letztgenannten berichte
gelten jedoch noch immer als unbestätigt. (Update dazu: Bestätigung jetzt da. Spiegel berichtet im Beitrag “Tote bei Protesten gegen Mubarak”, dass Reuters Videoaufnahmen zumindest eines solchen Falls hat)
8:50 gmt+1 – mehrere tweets melden einen getöteten, etwa 100 verletzte. quelle ist eine ägyptische zeitung. der getroffene wurde nach bisherigen informationen arabischsprechender leser durch herzschuss getötet. 9pm: in tweets wird ein name mitgeteilt. – die zeitung AlMasryAlYoum_A antwortet auf unsere nachfrage, der artikel dazu soll nach ihrer auskunft am folgetag erscheinen. – Es scheint einen weiteren Todesfall zu geben, Iranian Press TV berichtet nach auskunft von PoliticallyBrit von 2 getöteten. – name des ersten getöteten laut bereits mehreren tweets: Mustafa Reda Mahmoud Abdelfattah, in Suez. —
9:40pm gmt+1 – BBC News: Egypt protest: Three reported dead in “day of revolt” (link [BBC has another time zone time] now added to paragraph with links to larger media networks above) – BBC reports 2 killed protesters (sources: doctors in Suez) and one dead policeman (source for this: state TV)
10:40pm gmt+1: weddady writes: “TRUSTED SOURCE @Zeinobia: Curfew imposed in Suez following report of 2nd death #Jan25″ —phijazin (Dubai television reporter) 0 gmt+1: “the sounds i heard from the live stream are tear gas. maybe a couple of rubber bullets, they have a sharper firing sound” – jan 26th, 0:40am gmt+1: bencnn (Ben Wedemann, a CNN reporter) writes: “Cairo echoing with blasts, ambulance sirens. Tear gas wafting down corniche toward tv bldg. panicked drivers going wrong way.” and 3 minutes later: “Madness in #Cairo. Restraint thrown to the wind. Complete crackdown on all protesters. Blasts from multiple directions.” – “Police rounding up beating protesters on corniche near 6 October bridge…burning tires blocking the road.”
meanwhile: first reactions to the Egyptian government’s blockade of twitter and media pages are getting visible online. Click here for a nice snapshot (flickr, “Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Egypt is unavailable”). – NDP (ruling party in Egypt) unavailable – Ministry of Interior in Egypt unavailable
a link is too much effort now? – don’t worry, we have a small copy:
Rudolf Elmer, John Christensen, Jack Blum (and a delayed Wikileaks spokesperson) – Frontlineclub press conference on January 17th 2011
[wn030] If there is a basic need for the public in order to compare a view presented by mass media with their (the people’s) own focus and angle, in order to escape their expected role ase pure news consumers, then this basic need is access to original data. In fact, this is what once was most interesting about the platform Wikileaks. But this need of access does not apply only to secret or classified documents, it applies the same to public events that can easily be reported in a way typical for most media covering: focus on persons that news agencies develop a high interest in with exterme shortening if not misleading of the original message.
The media at the press conference in the London Frontlineclub seem to have been mostly busy with waiting plus afterwards shooting of a next series of Wikileaks spokesperson photographs, it seems the message of this press conference has reached only few of them. The other half of present media had an understandable focus on Elmer’s court case, a topic that heated up 2 days later (see Elmer-related links below).
So, what could be more crucial for an event than to care for being accessible for the public not only via mass media agendas. The Frontlineclub in London showed awereness of this need. The press conference on January 17th was streamed life, the recorded streams are available for everybody interested via the Fontlineclub webpage as well as on other pages re-publishing the stream.
Speaking at the Frontlineclub on 17.1.2011 were:
Jack Blum, described as: “one of the United States’ leading white-collar defense attorneys specialising in money laundering. He works for Baker Hostetler, a Washington, D.C. law firm. He focuses his practice in the areas of bank and securities firm compliance, congressional investigations, international financial crime, money laundering and offshore tax evasion.” (source)
John Christensen from the Tax Justice Network, described as “a development economist and former economic adviser to the UK and Jersey governments. John has researched tax havens and tax policy for many years. He has also played a leading role in campaigning for tighter regulation and control of tax havens and offshore finance centres. He is a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce and is based at the New Economics Foundation, London. His work for the Tax Justice Network is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.” (source)
and Rudolf Elmer himself (in case you missed it, you’ll find published information about Elmer in media like: 20min.ch about the court case on Jan 19th, bazonline.ch, zeit.de, tagesanzeiger.ch about Elmer’s detention on the evening of Jan 19th, the news agency Reuters, BBC, gulli.com on Jan 21st “Elmer bis Montag in Gewahrsam” – as well as in other media in case you care to google a bit).
(plus the delayed Wikileaks spokesperson, covered by enough media so ignored on this page here)
In case you haven’t taken your chance yet to take a look at the event yourself other than the look a present journalist has taken, here are some quotes we feel worth underlining, to whet your appetite:
4:30ff. “we are here to discuss mr Elmer’s case, the issues it raises and its relations with wikileaks and vice versa”
Frontlineclub welcomes jack blum from wasington DC
5:14ff. Jack Blum:
“what we’re here to talk about is a system of offshore, which is really designed to prevent law enforcement and goverments from getting information in timely fashion to pursue all forms of illicit money:”
“Why do we allow some countries to make a living by hiding the tax money that has not been paid
by hiding money that has been stolen
by hiding money that has been derived from various several kinds of crimes?”
“Working in the Cayman islands i realised that something goes wrong
I tried to approach tax authorities during my fight
I want to let the society know how the system works because it’s damaging our society”
John Christensen (Tax Justice Network) (18:10ff)
“the jokes amongs tax lawyers goes: those who know don’t talk and those who talk don’t know.
In other words: people working inside the system earning a great deal of money have every reason for not talking about what they’re doing. it takes a great man or women to start to talk about what they’re doing”
tax evasion, tax avoidance – difference not clear but both working against public interests
the public don’t know about it,
we don’t know the exact scale
Estimates: at least 5 trillion us dollars is held offshore –
Our own estimate is at least 11,5 trillion US-dollars is held offshore, untaxed, tax evading
A more reasonable estimate: James Henry (US economist) – puts the amount of volume of private wealth held offshore now at close to 20. 20 trillion us-dollars tax evading money.
If you want to understand why there’s so much unrest… why we apparently can’t afford to keep our public services in the West, you might want to start to ask questions about what’s happened to the wealth, where does it sit – well, it sits largely offshore.
Some of Elmers answers to journalists’ questions made their way to the press. In case you want to find the quoted sentences, here they are:
“If you can’t destroy the evidence, beat the witness”
i wrote a letter to peer steinbrück, no response
(interested and looking for the link to the press conference? scroll up again, it’s in the 3rd paragraph.)
Crime and Corporation – webhoster Godaddy, Melissa Clouthier et al.: USA desorianted about what in fact is a case for prosecution in their country.
[wn030, 12.-15.1.2011] When the first messages about pages preparing for – as one may expect – an even more unbelievable step in the hunt for the wikileaks spokesperson arrived the twittersphere, at least 3 addresses calling for murder were known. According to current informations (not yet verified), a part of them seems to be registered by a single person in Virginia. Addresses like “killassange” and “killjulianassange”, with a “coming soon” are part of this phenomenon. At least one of the pages (julianassangemustdie.com) is according to our information recognised as registered by Melissa Clauthier, a person who fights on blog pages for the “right to live” of cells clusters (regardless if pregnant women wish to be mothers or not, and absolutely regardless if those already existing female lifes wish it to get born in a country where they as mothers later will be forced to simply give it away to an army general in order to let it be killed there, later, after they already got a life and with much more pain for any party involved then), while at the same time, as visible, having no problem with her participation in a criminal act. Among people assimilated to the US culture, she’s also known as a desperate enemy of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Godaddy is the webhoster of at least 3 of those mentioned pages, although confirming hosting only 2 of them. We
are (were) still awaiting a last written confirmation of their aware participation in an indictable offence.
In an email forwarded to us Godaddy wrote on January 12th:
“The domain killassange.com is directing to the IP of 18.104.22.168, which is not an IP allocated to Go Daddy. According to an IP whois it is allocated to Hoosier PC SBC. Go Daddy is not hosting the content. We have neither access to, nor jurisdiction over the content on this site. The web hosting provider for this website is the company responsible for policing any content that appears on this site.
There is no content currenlty resolving on the domains killjulianassange.com and julianassangemustdie.com.
As your complaint addresses the issue of wording of the domain name itself, we are unable to take action at this time. The complaint either needs to be taken up with the domain name owner directly, or should be filed in a UDRP or court proceeding. …” (note: we received this answer forwarded by the receipient, but the answer was made publicly available by the receipient herself, too. you’ll find the full copy on Laurel L. Russwurm’s page here).
So, Godaddy is confirming hosting 2 of the addresses, refusing responsibility for the 3rd one. The attention of the tech literate blogger Jan Wilderboer got caught by the first tweets on Twitter about these addresses online (tweets started by Evgeni Morozov, author of “The Net Delusion”, a few days later interviewed by taz about his book). Jan Wilderboer posted an early blog page about these issues (followed by an update on a 2nd page). He clarifies how to judge Godaddy’s claim not to host killassange.com in an email anwer to our asking for valuation of Godaddy’s claim. He says it’s:
“Simple. A domain is technically speaking two things:
– The domain ownership entry in whois
– The domain nameserver information in DNS
In this case, the domain is registered by someone via domainsbyproxy.com. This company is a customer of godaddy and thus the domain was registered ultimately (as in added to the .com registry) by godaddy, as you can see from whois information.
After the domain was registered, the owner added DNS information to the entry and thus pointed the domain to the IP address 22.214.171.124, which belongs to AT&T who have rented out the specific range to Hoosie PC according to whois:
AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SBIS (NET-99-0-0-0-1) 126.96.36.199 – 188.8.131.52
Hoosier PC SBC-99-14-212-0-22-0806041657 (NET-99-14-212-0-1) 184.108.40.206
So godaddy can officially claim they have nothing to do with themselves. Domainsbyproxy ordered the domain on behalf of their customer and the customer directed the DNS to an IP address at Hoosie.” (highlighting/bold format by wn030)
Our own inquiriy for a publicly quotable confirmation of their will to take part in a crime is
not answered yet (public reply arrived, scroll down for it). At the same time, reports about single pages going offline reach us, although there is still a full set of them on the web, awaiting the company to finally decide whether they want to participate in“perhaps the single most serious criminal offense” (West’s encylopedia of American law) that may “be sentenced to many years in prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of parole, or (since the criminal personnel is located in the USA, ed. by author) death”.
On Jan 13th, an update on the page of Jan Wildeboer is visible as following:
[UPDATE 2011-01-11 21:54 CET: killassange.com and killjulianassange.com both up and running, no reply from godaddy so far]
[UPDATE 2011-01-11 11:44 CET: Seems the domain julianassangemustdie.com has been deleted by its owner. See Godaddy WHOIS entry]
[UPDATE 2011-01-11 11:33 CET: Seems killjulianassange is down ATM. Could be simple change though.]
[UPDATE: I send an updated mail with the doamin julianassangemustdie.com added and clarified some aspects. New version reproduced here, old version archived in this same post.]
In contrary to the questionable position of Godaddy, whose CEOs seem so far not to have clarified whether they wish business with people or business with death (sure, there’s not much real money potentional in death itself, but can a single web visitor so far exclude if it’s not Godaddy’s aim to attract gun producing and gun advertising “customers” in the future? a biz plan that would be condemned to fail from the beginning since the best gun clients of rifleclub tend to be the kind of offline stoneagers with quite small real business to expect from, but according to Godaddys reactions so far, we shouldn’t expect extremely bright decision makers there, same, btw, is valid for weapons deals on larger scale, as an online comment patiently tries to explain), so in contrary to that, the company HPC showed a more businesslike and professional attempt to this problem, proving an understanding of the need of civilization as basic ground for any corporate plan to be successful at the end. On Jan 13th, we received the following reply to our inquiry from HPC:
The current IT administrator at the customer location said that they believe the server was compromised, or the page was setup by a former employee. They weren’t able to provide a definitive answer on that, but they did remove the page.
Re. Godaddy and the still unsolved case of the killassange.de domain, tech skilled people are now observing DNS entries and are prepared to alarm in case a next criminal act of this kind shows up.
update jan 15th 2011: Godaddy finally answered publicly our inquiry for a public statement:
Thank you for your inquiry. Although your question is not entirely clear, we can offer the following:
No, we do not support any call for violence of any kind. Of that you can be sure.
For background, you should know that Go Daddy registers a domain name every .8 seconds. Any domain name can be registered; the process is completely automated, there is no human intervention.
Importantly, unless and until there is content associated with a registered domain name, such as killjulianassange.com, there is no way for us to know what the domain name will be used for. Because there is no content associated with this particular domain name at the present time, and we cannot predict whether it will be used to violate any rule of law, and we therefore do not plan to take action at this time.
– Go Daddy
(source: click on date link.)
In order to reply to that, we still refer to the sentences we posted on jan 13th:
so let us reread this once again. godaddy has a problem with reading, is it this? a sentence is not a sentence anymore, recognizable as a criminal action and therefore satisfactory to check compliance with their T&C? well if a page hoster cannot recognize a crime as a crime anymore, what then to think about the company. sure legal action, but there might be in this case enough reason to go the court way re both: the registering person as well as the person who cannot read a sentence anymore although obviously answering emails in the same language.
we can complement it with the following: sure, a company, a corporate business aimed organization should never be expected to act according to law just for the sake of it. but as shown above, even from pure business point of view, Goddys position seems to make hardly any sense. From the legal point of view, a company is still bound to the legal frame in the country of their own base, in this case the mentioned murder act.
on Jan 14th, 2011, the huffingtonpost reported about the threat domain pages: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/death-threat-domain-names_n_809174.html
feel free also to check out vivantleakers, (presented by artificialeyes, among others – a page whose attention got caught by this topic after it was posted by jan wilderboer as one of the many early reactions to the attentive tweets sent by Evgeni Morozov). The abovelinked huffington post article refers to vivantleakers as one of their web sources where they (as the newspaper with in this case Lila Shapiro as the finally writing journalist) have been hinted at the topic. According to people involved vivantleakers was built up in around 10 hours.
available since jan 15th: http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/21910/discourse-civility-and-killing-julian-assange – “… let’s kill Julian Assange for Christmas seems to be a serious rallying cry for some. Killassange.com was registered on December 21, 2010. Killjulianassange.com was registered on November 30, 2010. Julianassangemustdie.com was registered by a fairly prominent right-wing blogger named Melissa Clouthier on December 6, 2010. Julianassangedeathpool.com on December 6, 2010. Then, of course, there are variations on this idea with published feelers like “Anyone up for a dead pool on Julian Assange?” posted on December 31, 2010. Lastly, enter the satirists from Landover Baptist Church with a recent poll “How would Jesus kill Julian Assange?” …”
since january 16th, a text on wlcentral [by DaveM (@dredeyedick)] is reporting about this topic, too.
Since Jan 19th available: “Who is Melissa Clouthier? Good question. I’m glad I asked.” Matt Cornell gives a short overview of Melissa’s recent activities online.
“Treat incitement seriously.” – Wikileaks press release calling for legal consequences for incitement to murder, 10./11.1. 2011
In a press release twittered on early January 11th 2001, Wikileaks is calling for legal action against media and politics personnell committing open crime (incitement to murder) in publications and broadcastings:
“… WikiLeaks staff and contributors have also been the target of unprecedented violent rhetoric by US prominent media personalities, including Sarah Palin, who urged the US administration to “Hunt down the WikiLeaks chief like the Taliban”. Prominent US politician Mike Huckabee called for the execution of WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange on his Fox News program last November, and Fox News commentator Bob Beckel, referring to Assange, publicly called for people to “illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” (wn030: an diesem abschnitt gibt es ein detail zu korrigieren. anders als in der pressemeldung behauptet, hatte Huckabee zur hinrichtung von Bradley Manning, nicht von J. Assange aufgerufen. mittelalterlich genug, trotzdem bleibt der name in der liste eine unkorrektheit, sofern uns nicht neue zitate von Huckabee bekannt werden. wir konzentrieren uns eher auf aussagen wie die von Beckel. Über die späten korrekturen der fehlermeldungen in medien wie u.a. dem SPIEGEL berichtet der BILDblog auf dieser seite.)
The press release reminds of some of the loudest people openly debating murder:
US radio personality Rush Limbaugh has called for pressure to “Give [Fox News President Roger] Ailes the order and [then] there is no Assange, I’ll guarantee you, and there will be no fingerprints on it.”, while the Washington Times columnist Jeffery T. Kuhner titled his column “Assassinate Assange” captioned with a picture Julian Assange overlayed with a gun site, blood spatters, and “WANTED DEAD or ALIVE” with the alive crossed out.
John Hawkins of Townhall.com has stated “If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data?”
Christian Whiton in a Fox News opinion piece called for violence against WikiLeaks publishers and editors, saying the US should “designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.”
WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange said: “No organisation anywhere in the world is a more devoted advocate of free speech than Wikileaks but when senior politicians and attention seeking media commentators call for specific individuals or groups of people to be killed they should be charged with incitement — to murder. Those who call for an act of murder deserve as significant share of the guilt as those raising a gun to pull the trigger.”
The text raises concerns over the security of live and health of their staff members:
“WikiLeaks has many young staff, volunteers and supporters in the same geographic vicinity as these the broadcast or circulation of these incitements to kill. We have also seen mentally unstable people travel from the US and other counties to other locations. Consequently we have to engage in extreme security measures.”
One of the WikiLeaks volunteers left the Seattle airport after a flight to the US around the time of the press release tweet. (See his notes on his arrival here – Jacob Appelbaum reports detention and questioning at the airport, similarly to last year’s news. More about this here and here, although, re. this last link – to abc – j. appelbaum has a correction. see re. correction here. since jan15th, you can also click this article about appelbaums detention in seattle.)
The press release is calling for legal consequenses for persons who misuse the freedom of speech for illegal invocations of the mentioned kind:
“We call on US authorities and others to protect the rule of law by aggressively prosecuting these and similar incitements to kill. A civil nation of laws can not have prominent members of society constantly calling for the murder and assassination of other individuals or groups.”
It ends with a link where visitors and readers who were not aware how seriously America is leaving civilized ground can take a look at some other examples. Presented quotes of calls for murder.
Some additional links related to this topic:
im netz sind mehrere webseiten aufgetaucht, deren webadressen verbindungen von “kill” und “assange” oder “julianassange” darstellen. bisher enthalten sie keine inhalte. – update hierzu: http://jan.wildeboer.net/2011/01/wrt-killjulianassange-com-killassange-com-and-godaddy/
auf die pressemitteilung geht der SPIEGEL im beitrag zum heutigen gerichtstermin am 11.1. kurz ein: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,738872,00.html
away from central topic of this page (necessary legal steps against crime, i.e. public incitement to murder), but necessary due to timeliness: a link related to the court date today – anlässlich also dieses im oben verlinkten SPIEGEL-beitrag erwähnten heutigen gerichtstermins: der guardian veröffentlicht eine zusammenfassung der verteidigungs-argumentation (11.1.2011)
zu genau diesem aktuellen gerichtstermin-thema wiederum sind ab minute 2:10 in einem tagesschau-beitrag vom 16.12. (verlinkt findet sich dieser tagesschau-kommentar auf dieser gulli-seite) ein paar sätze zu hören, die sich in vielen medien eher vermissen lassen noch. die kommentatorin Annette Dittert merkt an, dass im gegebenen fall der veranstaltete zirkus schwer verständlich ist. da es keine anzeige gibt (die beiden frauen hatten eine solche von anbeginn an nicht vor), ist zu fragen, warum sich die schwedische staatsanwältin Assange unter den gegebenen umständen (er soll nur befragt werden) nicht einfach in england befragen kann. der tagesschaulink ist auch über einen “dipp” auf gulli zu finden.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/14-5 – john pilger dropped some well written words in a recent article: “hell hath no fury like imperial mafiosi scorned”. feel free to click the commondreams-link for a n informative sample, presenting violent media rhetoric examples spread via Fox News since 1998.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/15/qa-former-wikileaks-spokeswoman-birgitta-jonsdottir/ – “… WikiLeaks is not a terrorist organization and it’s not right when people that have strong media attention, such Sarah Palin and others, when they start to call for the assassination of Julian Assange. Just look at what happened in Arizona. People need to understand that words are very powerful and if you use this word calling for the assassination of Julian Assange or me or anybody else associated with WikiLeaks, are these people willing to live with the consequences if any of us would be killed?- Do you think you’re really at risk of being assassinated? – You don’t put out empty threats like this. This is a very serious threat. Here is a person that was running as a vice-president of the United States saying things like this. How can you possibly take the United States seriously if this is the quality of the dialogue of the people that are running for the highest offices in this country? …”
Zwischenfrage: und habt ihr auch was zu diesem “Subpoena”? (Anordnung an Twitter zur Auslieferung von wikileaksbezogenen Daten) <> wn030: haben wir. ein paar leseempfehlungen haben wir hier und hier zusammengestellt (erster link beschäftigt sich mit den daten der in der anordnung genannten accounts, zweiter mit der abfrage der daten von followern und usern, selbst solchen, die per zufall im netz auf einen tweet geklickt haben, ohne eingeloggt zu sein). die abfrage ist bestandteil von erkundungs-schnüffeleien im zusammenhang der konstruktion des konspirations-vorwurfs (siehe dazu wiederum links in den ergänzungen unten).