Ask HN: What non-financial ways can I/we help Wikileaks?
We've all been watching Wikileaks take a beating from the powers that be, and even though I might take issue with the way in which they handle some of their information I think their cause is important and I find it deplorable that the big guns (Amazon, Paypal, EveryDNS, etc.) would try to essentially kick someone off the internet rather than at least allowing free speech to take place.
I don't have a lot of money right now (bootstrapping a startup while my last one sits in the clutches of an evil marketing megalomaniac), so donating to Wikileaks is not really an option. I do have a fair amount of technical expertise (as compared to the general public, at least - maybe not compared to the community here or the staff at WL). What can I do to help them, and does anyone else want to get on board?
50 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadAs for details... I'm wondering myself. I feel too much like a slacktivist so far.
Or you can be a public backup; mirror the wikileaks site like the dutch "schock blog" Geenstijl did: http://mirror.geenstijl.nl/20101203-wikileaks/213.251.145.96...
Edit: not much, <15MiB. Got some torrents seeded now, thanks for pointer.
Edit: I love it. Downvoted. Information is classified for many reasons. Some of which are because some information may help the US's enemies. That is treason.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
You only know now that the information released was not of high caliber. You only know that after 1 man decided to release these documents. If this 1 man decides to continue to release information, one day he may release something more substantial that could actually harm the US.
You downvote me for what? Because you don't agree that it's treason? Or you simply support someone releasing classified information. You don't get to break the law and then later claim that it's not that bad. He broke. the. law.
But I think the allegation of "eleasing classified information, treason..." needs to be proven ( at least better evidenced ) before suppression by governmental (quasi-governmental?) retaliation.
What Wikileaks does is protected free speech in the United States. What some of their sources do or have done, might be illegal.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/common-sense/maybe-th...
My counterpoint is twofold: maintaining secrecy and security is the responsibility of the government(s) involved. Chasing Wikileaks after the fact and twisting the arms of those they do business with only lends credence to the fact that the parties involved failed to protect classified information. If Wikileaks was able to get it, so would anyone bent on causing harm. The mere fact that Wikileaks released it exposes serious security flaws. Punishing them for that is akin to punishing hackers who expose a Windows vulnerability instead of selling it to the highest bidder - enormously foolish in my opinion.
The second counterpoint is maybe more important: the fact that the US government chooses to silence Wikileaks by making them the pariah of internet business sets an extremely poor precedent, should the internet allow them to succeed. I think most HN users agree that net neutrality is a good, important thing. I suspect most of us agree that internet censorship on the scale of the Chinese firewall is damaging. (Note: I and probably many others agree that things like child porn are a good thing to try to keep off the internet, and the distinction in my opinion is that society has a responsibility to protect children as much as we can.) So then why would we allow government and big business to shut down a website that is holding them up to a journalistic standard they aren't used to?
There is nothing wrong with Wikileaks, but I find it to be wrong that somebody leaked classified documents.
Supporting Wikileaks is not wrong directly, but sites like Wikileaks provide incentive to those with classified information to leak it. That is not something I want to see happen.
I think it's more complicated than that. "Following orders" is not an acceptable defense, and for that reason I think leaking classified documents is not only sometimes justifiable but that it is sometimes an absolute necessity (ie. in the case where classified documents are the only evidence of a crime). Most of the time, though, you're probably right - classified documents should remain secure.
Sites like Wikileaks provide incentive to those with classified information to leak it.
Part of my point in the previous post was that if there is a weak point in an organization, there will be a leak. I think there is enough incentive for information leaks without Wikileaks - I have no source for this but I suspect that the diplomatic cables alone would have been worth millions in the black market before the leak. Wikileaks is actually one of the safest places for this information to go.
Some of those acts were criminal, some were not. Some were (non-criminal) violations of contracts they signed with their employer or as a condition of their security clearance.
New details keep coming out every day. It's too early to say with any authority what happened.
One very useful thing to do is boycott Amazon over this, and ask your friends and family to do so as well. It's easy enough:
- buy books and DVDs elsewhere this holiday season - ask any friends and family not to buy via Amazon - post about it on your Facebook (and your blog if you have one)
Amazon made a business decision not to stand up for free speech. If they take a beating as a result, other companies will think twice before doing the same.
http://www.torproject.org/
http://www.torservers.net/
If you are a coder, donate your time and help with development (irc.oftc.net, #tor)
And yes, technology can be misused. So can a hammer. Tor protects everyone. Who is to judge about what is "bad" and what is "good"? US Government? Google?
There's an estimated number of at least 10,000 bridge users EVERY DAY. I don't think any criminal would go through the pain of using bridges, so that must be people behind firewalls in totalitarian countries.
Also, if you're up to something not good, it's always easy. As a criminal you can buy bot nets, pay servers with stolen credit cards, etc.
Both untraceable, anonymous communication (what Tor provides) and the public distribution of previously confidential documents (what WikiLeaks provides) are controversial in this way; but it is far from clear that they "help the bad guys [as much as] the good guys".
Daniel Domscheit-Berg said in a german interview a few months ago that they have a full inbox for programmers willing to extend the plattform, but they don't have any resources to review the applications nor the "middle management" to coordinate them.
Also Assange has put no effort into changing this in favour of releasing these "big" scoops. So: at the moment there probably isn't much you can do in terms of direct involvement.
http://www.bradleymanning.org/15364/holiday-cards-for-bradle...
Those consequences are probably negligible for the overwhelming majority here, but for anybody anticipating getting a US security clearance within the next seven years, you're likely shooting yourself in the foot. You'll either have to reveal the fact that you've disclosed classified material, or else lie under oath. Neither of those being ideal if you're trying to get that job.
It also conflicts with your clearance if you're already holding one.
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't support Wikileaks. Just make sure you give it adequate thought before jumping on a torrent.
Sincerely though, thanks for pointing that out. It may have more immediate/drastic consequences for others and should certainly be taken into consideration.
I agree with you - you can't put Pandora back in the box. I don't, however, think that changes the classification of the leaked documents. When judging an individual's fitness for a security clearance, I imagine that they're looking more at character traits than specific instances of undesirable behavior. Sharing these documents that are already "public knowledge" is only noteworthy because it may indicate that you're not uncomfortable with the idea of releasing classified documents if it's for a cause you believe in. (Just speculating here)
>>Also if State et al. don't hire anyone interested by the cables I think we might be slightly screwed later
I disagree with this. I can think of a handful of reasons somebody lacking interest in these cables would still want to work for the government. Example: To do engineering work for a defense contractor, you'll undoubtedly need a secret+ clearance. You might seek such positions for the job security they provide. Or maybe you're interested in working with cutting edge technology that isn't necessarily available at more budget constrained (IE commercial) companies. Many of the engineers working at a high technical level are drawn to the technology, not the politics.
To reveal any bias, I should note that I do contract work for the US government.
The key issue is that a person with a security clearance cannot knowingly distribute information that he knows carries a security classification. It's not a matter of "being interested."
You can rant all you want, but that does not change the fact that if you have/want a security clearance and you redistribute the Wikileaks content (the American stuff; the foreign stuff is okay), you will lose or be denied a security clearance.