Follow the Snail's silver trail ....... Follow Dr_Jonx on Twitter
Visualizzazione post con etichetta wikileaks. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta wikileaks. Mostra tutti i post

07/09/11

Public Disclosure

Come accade quasi sempre, gli articoli di Marco Calamari su Punto Informatico sono molto interessanti.
Intanto perché Marco scrive molto bene, con pacatezza ed abbondanza di dati.

Oltre a ciò, questa volta parla di una cosa che, almeno al sottoscritto (OK, non faccio testo :) ) era del tutto ignota ma che invece ha subito destato interesse.

Si parla infatti di una sorta di "Wikileaks 2.0", più propriamente denotata come Globaleaks, la quale

"[...] non è un'organizzazione, e nemmeno un gruppo di persone collegato in qualsiasi modo ai processi o ai siti di Public Disclosure: è una comunità di persone che sviluppa e mantiene, apertamente e su scala internazionale, una singola applicazione libera ed open source chiamata appunto Globaleaks".

Il tutto nasce sostanzialmente dall'aver constatato che

"l'intero processo di Public Disclosure doveva essere ripensato e reso più sicuro e più semplice utilizzando mezzi informatici e la Rete, e che la cosa doveva essere realizzata proteggendo al massimo, particolarmente dal punto di vista delle responsabilità legali, tutti gli attori del processo".

Davvero interessante ... e promettente!

Hasta luego.

[Photo credits | photo by freeflyer09 via Flickr]

04/04/11

Ascoltate un cretino

Ho appena appreso grazie a un paio di benemeriti (qua Wil e qua Fabio Chiusi) che il signore qui accanto (immortalato mentre sta mostrando la dimensione del proprio intelletto) si accingerebbe, nientepopòdimenoche a spiegarci

"perché la presunta operazione trasparenza in realtà è un inganno contro la libertà e lo fa nel libro "Contro Assange, oltre Assange, in allegato domani con il Giornale".

(Estiqaatsi!! pensa che è bene che tutti possono pubblicare libro dove dire quello che vogliono. Augh!)

Trepidando (e tremando) nell'attesa, la chicca dell'articolo sul Giornale è rappresentata dall'essere stato il suo estensore Gian Maria De Francesco capace, senza sbafare il manoscritto a causa degli sghignazzi, di mettere insieme nella stessa frase il nostro maître-a-penser (Capezzone, meglio specificarlo) con un altro scrittorucolo da 4 soldi, che a malapena abbiamo sentito nominare noi che siamo l'elitè culturale della sinistra snobista:

"Quello che Martin Heidegger definiva lo «sbilanciamento sulla visività» tipico della contemporaneità è, nell’analisi di Capezzone, il predominio della «versione ufficiale», della ridondanza e della ripetitività di un messaggio come giustificazione della sua verità intrinseca. L’inganno della Rete (e dunque di Wikileaks) è la legittimazione dell’errore".

Applausi. Sipario.

Hasta luego.

[Photo credits: by Giuseppe Nicoloro - http://www.flickr.com/photos/giuseppenicoloro/]

30/03/11

Onore

Oggi ho avuto l'onore di ricevere la risposta di Julian Assange ad una mia domanda che avevo postato sul sito de L'Espresso in previsione della live-chat di oggi alle 13.

Ecco qui di seguito sia la versione inglese originale della risposta (come postata da Assange) e, a seguire, la traduzione a cura della redazione del settimanale:


"First of all, thank you mr. Assange for your efforts. My question is: do you think (or hope) that there are any relationships between Wikileaks and the revolts that are taking place in the Middle-East countries?  
Posted by Giancarlo @ marzo 28, 2011 10:53 (Edit) ”
"The story of our involvement in the MENA uprisings is long and fascinating. So long, you’ll have to read about it in my book since there is not space here. However, briefly, we started publishing cables about the region from early December. In particular, through our arabic partners al-Akhbar ( and al-Masry al-Youm (Cairo). al-Akhbar, the most respected newspaper on-line in the region, published about nearly all the MENA countries, including Tunisia. A site, Tunisleaks, was set up, to also translate our material into French. The Tunisian government banned us and al-Akbar and a hacker war started, also involving Saudi-arabia. al-Akhbar was taken out three times, in what appears to be a state-sponsored attack. Hackers loyal to us, then redirected Tunsian goverment websites to WikiLeaks and the cables exposing the Ben Ali regime, then on December 16 a 26 year old computer technition in Tunis self-immolated, bringing a vital emotional and physical expression to the brewing outrage. Similar events happened with our involvement in Egypt."
Posted by Julian Assange @ marzo 30, 2011 13:23


"Innanzitutto, grazie mr. Assange per i suoi sforzi. La mia domanda è: lei ritiene (o spera) che ci sia una qualche relazione tra Wikileaks e le rivolte che si stanno verificando in Medio Oriente?"
Giancarlo
"La storia del nostro coinvolgimento in Medio Oriente e in Nord Africa è lunga e affascinante. La dovrà leggere nel mio libro perché qui non c'è abbastanza spazio. Tuttavia, in breve, posso dirle che abbiamo cominciato a pubblicare cable sulla regione a partire dall'inizio di dicembre. In particolare, lo abbiamo fatto attraverso i nostri partner arabi, al-Akhbar e al-Masry al-Youm al Cairo. al-Akhbar è il più rispettato quotidiano online della regione, pubblicato in quasi ogni paese del Medio Oriente e del Nord Africa, inclusa la Tunisia. E' stato creato un sito, Tunisleaks, per poter tradurre il materiale anche in francese. Il governo tunisino ha censurato sia noi che al-Akbar ed è cominciata una guerra di hacker che ha coinvolto anche l'Arabia Saudita. al-Akhbar è stato attaccato tre volte, in quello che è sembrato un'azione voluta e promossa dallo Stato. A quel punto alcuni hacker nostri amici hanno re-diretto i siti del governo tunisino a Wikileaks e così sono emersi i cable sul regime di Ben Ali. Poi, il 16 dicembre, un tecnico informatico di 26 di Tunisi si è autoimmolato. La sua azione ha creato un'impressione vivissima, fisica ed emotiva, del crescente oltraggio al popolo da parte del regime. Eventi simili si sono verificati nel nostro coinvolgimento in Egitto."

So' soddisfazioni... :)

Hasta luego.

[Photo credits: By Andreas Gaufer (26c3 Wikileaks) [CC-BY-2.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons]

08/02/11

What's "giornalismo"?

Un bell'esempio di web-giornalismo (cos'è? non lo so, ma me lo immagino così) credo sia rappresentato dall'intervista che, in due parti (qui la prima, qui la seconda) Francesco Piccinini, direttore di Agoravox fa a Julian Assange, fondatore e mentore di Wikileaks.

E, lasciatemelo notare, deliziosa è la ingenua malizia dell'ultima domanda e relativa risposta:

Perché il nostro Ministro degli Esteri è così preoccupato di te tanto da definirti terrorista?
Chi è?
Frattini
Non so chi sia, non lo conosco”.
Risate. Applausi. Sipario.

Hasta luego.

[Photo credits: Artwork by Graphic Tribe - http://rixstep.com/1/1/1/20101027,01.shtml - via Wikicommons]

21/12/10

Che volemo fa'?

   No, dico, ne vogliamo parlare o il voltastomaco ha già preso il sopravvento...?



Tuesday, 03 May 2005, 15:18
S E C R E T ROME 001506
SIPDIS
BAGHDAD PLEASE PASS TO BG">BG VANGJEL;
JUSTICE FOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION
EO 12958 DECL: 05/02/2015
TAGS PREL, MOPS, KJUS, IT, IZ, IRAQI FREEDOM
SUBJECT: IRAQ/ITALY: BERLUSCONI TRYING TO PUT CALIPARI
INCIDENT BEHIND US - ITALIAN REPORT FINDS NO INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Classified By: Ambassador Mel Sembler, reasons 1.4 b and d.
Summary
   1. Italian government officials brief US diplomats on their report into Nicola Calipari's shooting in Iraq. The report is said to support the "tragic accident thesis", but it has clear differences with an earlier US report. Key passages are highlighted in yellow.
   2. Read related article
1. (S) Summary and Recommendation: Just prior to the May 2 release of the Italian report on the March 4 killing of intelligence officer Nicola Calipari at a U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad, Ambassador, DCM and PolMilCouns were called to PM Berlusconi's office to receive an advance copy of the report and to hear from senior GOI officials their view of the way forward. The Italians stressed that the GOI wanted to put the incident behind us, that it would not damage our strong friendship and alliance, and that it would not affect the Italian commitment in Iraq. The Italians said that while U.S. cooperation with Italy in the joint investigation had been total and thoroughly professional, Italy had to stand by the Italian reconstruction of the March 4 incident. The Italian report, they said, concluded that the shooting was not intentional and that no individual responsibility could be assigned for the shooting, thus making the magistrate's criminal investigation less likely to develop into a full criminal case.
2. (S) Recommendation (see also Para 9): While the Italian report quibbles with many findings and much of the methodology of the US AR 15-6 report on the incident, we will be best served by resisting the temptation to attack the Italian version point-by-point, and should instead continue to let our report speak for itself. While our instinct at Post is to defend the U.S. report and criticize the Italian one, we realize the consequences of doing so could be asymmetrical: while the criticism in the Italian report is unlikely to have serious negative consequences for the USG, if the GOI appears to be disloyal to its public servants - or to be rolling over to please the USG in this matter, the consequences for Berlusconi's government and Italy's commitment in Iraq could be severe. Therefore, we strongly recommend all USG spokespeople stand by the 15-6 report while refraining from detailed criticism of the Italian draft. End Summary and Recommendation.
3. (S) Ambassador, DCM and PolMilCouns were called to the PM's office late May 2 to receive an advance copy of the Italian report on the March 4 Calipari incident, based on the joint investigation carried out with the U.S., and to hear from senior GOI officials their views on the matter. Present on the Italian side were FM Fini, U/S Letta, PM Dip Advisor (NSA equivalent and Ambassador-designate to the US) Castellaneta, SISMI Chief Pollari, a few of their senior aides, and the two Italian investigators BG">BG Campregher and MFA official Ragaglini. (Berlusconi himself was not at the meeting and, we believe, was out of Rome until the next morning.)
4. (S) The Italians made the following main points:
-- The intent of Italian Government is that this incident should have no negative effect on our excellent bilateral relations.
-- Specifically, there should be no effect on the Italian commitment in Iraq.
-- The Italian government wants to put the incident behind us and hopes this report will contribute to that end (see below for explanation as to how it will serve that purpose).
-- An unclassified version of report would be posted on a GOI web site May 2, with classified sections redacted. The full, classified report would be given only to PM Berlusconi, but the USG could have a copy on request after Berlusconi sees it.
-- Berlusconi would discuss the report in Parliament on Thursday, May 5.
-- It would be useful for President Bush to call Berlusconi Wednesday, so that he could say before Parliament the next day that he had spoken with the President about the matter.
5. (S) As to the report itself, the Italians generally described it as supporting the "tragic accident" thesis, and highlighted the following:
-- The report says it is impossible to attribute individual responsibility for the killing.
-- It also says Italian investigators found no evidence that killing was intentional.
-- This last point was designed specifically to discourage further investigation by the prosecuting magistrates, since under Italian law they apparently can investigate cases of intentional homicide against Italian citizens outside of Italy, but not cases of unintentional homicide. (NOTE: Our contacts warn that Italian magistrates are infamous for bending such laws to suit their purposes, so it remains to be seen whether the GOI tactic will work in this regard.) Also, Castellaneta told us later that the GOI was hoping the prosecutors would find that, because the killing was unintentional, there would not be grounds for a case of "excessive legitimate defense."
-- The Italian report was written with prosecuting magistrates in mind. The Italians stressed that USA 15-6 regulations permitted some things to be covered in the joint investigation but not others, while Italian magistrates had broader scope that had to be satisfied.
-- The government will block attempts by parliamentary committees to open their own investigations (there are already several calls for this from the opposition), on the grounds that this report answers questions sufficiently.
-- The report stands behind the accounts given by Sgrena, the driver, and SISMI's Baghdad Station Chief; i.e., the "Italian reconstruction" of the incident.
6. (S) The copy of 67-page Italian report that they handed to us was a draft that was still being proofread in another room (in fact, they said it was the only hard copy in existence, and they swapped out a couple pages during the meeting as typos were corrected). We have translated and e-mailed to State EUR/WE high points (see para 10) and faxed the complete text in Italian to State EUR/WE. Our quick scan indicates that there are several pages in which the Italian investigators take issue with specific facts and findings in the USA 15-6 report, generally on the grounds that the accounts of the Italian witnesses differed significantly from those of the American soldiers. There is also an extensive critique of the inadequacy of SOPs for Traffic control Points and Blocking Positions. It argues that more complete notification to US authorities would not have changed the outcome. In a subsequent meeting with the DCM, Castellaneta said the main difference in the reports was that the US report focused on communications while the Italian report focused on preparation of the soldiers and the stress under which they were operating. The final conclusions, though, are as stated by the Italians in our meeting: no individual responsibility, no deliberate intent.
7. (S) Ambassador Sembler told the Italians that the USG shared the Italian desire to put this incident behind us and not let it affect overall bilateral relations. In that regard, it was important for the Italian government not to point accusing fingers at the U.S. or complain about lack of cooperation, and we would endeavor to continue doing so ourselves . Fini said Italy could not complain about cooperation from U.S.; the Italian report clarified that the Italian investigators had full access and he would ask Berlusconi to stress that fact in parliament on May 5. Ragaglini and BG">BG Campregher were effusive about the "total and complete" cooperation they received from the USA investigators, including access to all evidence. The one caveat was that for five days before they arrived in Baghdad BG">BG Vangjel had been conducting interviews within the USA chain of command re communications and U.S. knowledge of the rescue operation. The Italians, however, were given copies of everything done prior to their arrival.
8. (S) The Italians were clearly not happy about the classified portions of the USA 15-6 posted on the web being "unredacted" so easily and asked the Ambassador for an explanation. They did not push the issue after he explained it was solely a technical mistake. The Italians said they had pulled from Baghdad the SISMI Station Chief whose name was revealed in the "unredacted" version of the 15-6; he will not go back.
9. (S) Embassy recommendations for immediate next steps:
-- The NSC should try to schedule a POTUS-Berlusconi call on Wednesday.
-- The USG public reaction for now should be limited to "We've just received Italian report and are studying it." (Italian press will be furiously nit-picking, and it will not serve a useful purpose for us to get into point-by-point refutation at this stage, although we might want to do backgrounders later in Baghdad, Washington, or Rome.)
-- The Department should consider a SecState-Fini call in the next few days to confirm that we share Italy's desire to put incident behind us.
10. (U) Informal Embassy Translation of Italian Report's Conclusions:
"The Italian representatives - based on the evidence they were able to obtain - did not find elements that would allege that the facts indicate deliberate murder.
It is realistic that tension felt by the soldiers and some inexperience and stress may have made them react instinctively and with little control.
The lack of formal references to clear rules that should have been observed makes it problematic to assign specific individual responsibilities.
The facts asserted by Ms. Sgrena, the car's driver and the SISMI Chief of Station in Baghdad can be considered realistic. Based on the overall analysis, their reconstruction is coherent and plausible."
End Informal Embassy Translation of Conclusions.
11. (U) Baghdad minimize considered.
SEMBLER
NNNN 2005ROME01506 - Classification: SECRET

02/12/10

Moral standards


I found an extremely thourough, well-written and clear post about the whole Wikileaks affaire; it is a post by Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York.
I do think many of the opinions stated in the post are largely shareable and insightful.

For example, Glenn states that the standards applied in judgeing Assange's behaviour are

"quite a rigorous moral standard"

so he takes the challenge and suggests to apply those very same standards to other stories - how about:
"the most destructive "anarchic exercise in 'freedom'" the planet has known for at least a generation:  the "human disaster" known as the attack on Iraq, which Klein supported?  That didn't result in the imprisonment of "a single foreign national," but rather the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent human beings, the displacement of millions more, and the destruction of a country of 26 million people.  Are those who supported that "anarchic exercise in 'freedom'" -- or at least those responsible for its execution -- also "criminals who should be in jail"?".

Well, that's worth a thought, isn't it?
Basically, Greeenwald's pamphlet spawns from an article by Time's Joe Klein, even though he's not there just to put the blame on Klein; in fact:
"his commentary is merely illustrative of what I'm finding truly stunning about the increasingly bloodthirsty two-minute hate session aimed at Julian Assange, also known as the new Osama bin Laden.  The ringleaders of this hate ritual are advocates of -- and in some cases directly responsible for -- the world's deadliest and most lawless actions of the last decade.  And they're demanding Assange's imprisonment, or his blood, in service of a Government that has perpetrated all of these abuses and, more so, to preserve a Wall of Secrecy which has enabled them."

And there's a major question mark that Greenwald throws on the table, that is:
"Do WikiLeaks critics believe it'd be best if all that were kept secret, if we remained ignorant of it, if the world's most powerful factions could continue to hide things like that?  Apparently.  When Joe Klein and his media comrades calling for Assange's head start uncovering even a fraction of secret government conduct this important, then they'll have credibility to complain about WikiLeaks' "excessive commitment to disclosure."  But that will never happen"

How could we disagree with that? And, also, how could we not subscribe that:
"It is a "scandal" when the Government conceals things it is doing without any legitimate basis for that secrecy.  Each and every document that is revealed by WikiLeaks which has been improperly classified -- whether because it's innocuous or because it is designed to hide wrongdoing -- is itself an improper act, a serious abuse of government secrecy powers.  Because we're supposed to have an open government -- a democracy --  everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications.   That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling "consent of the governed."
But we have completely abandoned that principle; we've reversed it.  Now, everything the Government does is presumptively secret; only the most ceremonial and empty gestures are made public
"

even if, as far as this last quote goes, I, as an Italian, would feel rather awkward in saying that here we're supposed to have a democracy - better, we're supposed to leave in a Videocracy :-/

Cheers