[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
National News See other National News Articles Title: WIKILEAKS AND UNTRACEABLE DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE Report from Secrecy News on weird new Wikipedia game January 3, 2007 WIKILEAKS AND UNTRACEABLE DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE A new internet initiative called Wikileaks seeks to promote good government and democratization by enabling anonymous disclosure and publication of confidential government records. "WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis," according to the project web site. "Our primary targets are highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia, central eurasia, the middle east and sub-saharan Africa, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations." "A system [that] enables everyone to leak safely to a ready audience is the most cost effective means of promoting good government – in health and medicine, in food supply, in human rights, in arms control and democratic institutions." Wikileaks says that it has already acquired over one million documents that it is now preparing for publication. The project web site is not yet fully "live." But an initial offering -- a document purportedly authored by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of Somalia's radical Islamic Courts Union -- is posted in a zipped file here: http://www.wikileaks.org/som.zip An analysis of the document's authenticity and implications is posted here: http://www.wikileaks.org/inside_somalia_v9.html Wikileaks invited Secrecy News to serve on its advisory board. We explained that we do not favor automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records. In the absence of accountable editorial oversight, publication can more easily become an act of aggression or an incitement to violence, not to mention an invasion of privacy or an offense against good taste. So we disagree on first principles? No problem, replied Wikileaks: "Advisory positions are just that -- advisory! If you want to advise us to censor, then by all means do so." See Wikileaks here: While Wikileaks seeks to make unauthorized disclosures technologically immune to government control, an opposing school of thought proposes to expand U.S. government authority to seize control of information that is already in the public domain when its continued availability is deemed unacceptably dangerous. "Although existing authorities do not directly address the subject, it appears that reasonable restrictions upon the possession and dissemination of catastrophically dangerous information can be constitutionally implemented," suggests Stewart Harris of the Appalachian School of Law. See "Restrictions are justifiable," National Law Journal, December 11, 2006: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1165501509178 Editors note on Wikipedia Problems: We have received a growing number of communications from viewers concerning ‘Wikipedia’ which advertises itself as an ‘online information service’, a sort of free Internet encyclopedia. The complaints are that the service is filled with articles obviously cribbed from other publications and not attributed but worse, many are obviously the work of spiteful contributors who publish reams of incorrect, and in some cases, libelous material. Apparently the strange “volunteers” who run Wikipedia welcome all manner of input from unknown sources, input which is posted by them without any kind of verification. Some of the raucous attacks on religious groups, political figures and historical events sound like the Daily Kos at full cry. Having some background in various historical subjects, we looked up specific subjects and discovered a porridge of fiction, prevarications and material that was to all intents and purposes, included for the purpose of disiniformation. Much of this is unsourced and as reference material, what we saw was completely worthless. Although the internet can be a priceless source of information, there is also a serious problem of self-interest and deliberate disinformation which can be found on almost all blogs and which has crept into search engines. Lonely, frustrated individuals who wallow in feelings of failure and towering inadequacy are drawn to the internet like moths to a candle and their prevarications and bleatings are matched entirely by the worthlessness of their observations and diminished opinions. In earlier times, these pathetic types would write 30 page letters to their local newspapers or stand on street corners with misspelled signs, waving at passing cars. Now, they only have to sit down at their computers and let everyone know how badly their childhood needed to have been prevented. Inaccuracy and mendacity is not the main problem with Wikipedia. In a number of cases, persons who availed themselves of this service were immediately inundated with hundreds of emails on the topic they had just accessed. In one case, a gentleman had searched for material on the Christian Gospels and within an hour, his mail box was stuffed with religious notices, fact sheets, requests for money and other support. Most of these obnoxious and unwanted communications came from Evangelical Christian groups. In the first week, this individual received over 700 emails and by the end of the month, the total had exceeded 2000. Even more obnoxious were problems encountered by a woman whose 14 year old daughter had consulted Wikipedia on the subject of abortion, information which she needed for a school paper on that subject. She had a similar experience to the first person cited. Within minutes of closing down the Wikipedia site, this girl had received over 200 emails, mostly from religious, anti-abortion organizations and by the end of the month, the total had swelled to 3000 emails! Needless to say, the mail boxes of both parties were jammed to the point that they were unable to receive any other emails. Both parties tried to contact Wikipedia personnel to complain but to date, there has been no response of any kind. This lack of concern is apparently standard. The question arises, obviously, as to how the spammers obtained the email addresses of the victims. In the two cases cited above, neither had ventured into the fields of interest before. Perhaps the proprietors of the site have found a way to make a profit from their “free site.” For those seeking accurate and sane information on diverse subjects, we heartily recommend the Encyclopedia Britannica site. Their reputation is quite beyond reproach and no one of our acquaintance has ever received hundreds of obnoxious spam messages because of their search for information there. Editor Note: Brian Harring is currently preparing an article on this interesting subject.
Poster Comment: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
Huh? http://www.wikileaks.org is under US control? As for http://Wikipedia.com, it's a "believe your lying eyes" source.
I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace. — George W. Bush, June 18, 2002, 10:30 A.M. EDT
This is very odd.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. – Tacitus
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||