- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: [Wikileaks-koord] US-Senate on Whistle-Blowing
by athos gualazzi Dec. 12, 2010

Dec. 12, 2010

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Gaul <thomas.gaul(a)piratenpartei.de> Date: 2010/12/12 Subject: Re: [Wikileaks-koord] US-Senate on Whistle-Blowing To: Wikileaks-coordination <wikileaks-koord(a)pippin.bash.info> Am 12.12.2010 22:20, schrieb Thomas Gaul: > Dear Pirates, > > just to inform you, the US-Senate unanimously agreed on > <http://pogoarchives.org/m/wi/s372-hotline-20101200.pdf> last friday. > > The House of Representatives still has to decide on the amendment. > > Best regards > > Thomas > > Ups, sorry. US-Senate agreed on the amendment. _______________________________________________ Wikileaks-koord mailing list Wikileaks-koord(a)pippin.bash.info https://pippin.bash.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wikileaks-koord -- Athos Gualazzi presidente Associazione Partito Pirata http://www.partito-pirata.it http://www.piratpartiet.it http://www.anonet.it

1 0

Guardian (Naughton): "WikiLeaks row: why Amazon's desertion has ominous implications for democracy"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 12, 2010

Dec. 12, 2010

WikiLeaks row: why Amazon's desertion has ominous implications for democracy /Amazon's decision to abandon WikiLeaks sends out a clear message: you can publish what you like -- as long as it meets with the government's approval / # John Naughton <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/johnnaughton> # guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk>, Saturday 11 December 2010 10.00 GMT One of the most interesting aspects of the WikiLeaks <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks> controversy is the light it has shed on the providers of cloud computing <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/cloud-computing>. One after another they have fallen over like dominoes when the going got rough <http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-moving-target.shtml>. First, some of the ISPs hosting WikiLeaks caved in; then EveryDNS, the company that mapped its domain names (eg wikileaks.org) on to machine addresses, dropped it; then Amazon, which had enough computer power and bandwidth to resist even the most determined cyber-attacks, took it off its computers; then PayPal and later Mastercard, the online conduits for donations, cancelled its accounts. The rationalisations these outfits gave for dropping WikiLeaks had a common theme, namely that it had violated the terms and conditions under which the terminated services had been provided. Amazon is the most interesting case. It provides so-called "cloud computing services" by renting out some of the thousands of computers used to run its online store. WikiLeaks moved its site on to Amazon's cloud to ensure that it would not be crippled by the denial-of-service attacks that had brought other ISPs to their knees. But then the company received a call from senator Joseph Lieberman, the kind of politician who gives loose cannons a bad name, who had been frothing about WikiLeaks being "implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security" <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/110905-lieberman-wikile…>. Some time after that, Amazon terminated WikiLeaks's account. [...] Continua qui: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-amazon-denial-de…

2 1

[NEXA]PI: Wireless europeo, una tassa per la crescita
by vale.it＠gmail.com Dec. 11, 2010

Dec. 11, 2010

http://punto-informatico.it/3053253/PI/News/wireless-europeo-una-tassa-cres…

2 1

online il PDF di "Apriti standard!"
by Simone Aliprandi Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

E' finalmente disponibile il file PDF del nuovo libro "Apriti standard! Interoperabilità e formati aperti per l'innovazione tecnologica", rilasciato con licenza CC by-sa. I feedback raccolti in questo primo mese di distribuzione della versione cartacea sono stati positivi; confido nel fatto che la disponibilità dell'intero libro in versione digitale possa consentire una sua massiccia diffusione attraverso la rete. Spero anche che tutti voi vogliate darmi una mano in quest'opera di divulgazione, segnalando attraverso i vostri canali la disponibilità online dell'opera e addirittura facendone una recensione. Sono ovviamente a disposizione per chiarimenti e informazioni più dettagliate... nonchè per organizzare presentazioni pubbliche, videoconferenze, o anche veri e propri seminari sul tema trattato dal libro. Per scaricare il file vi basta cliccare sulla sezione "scarica l'ebook" del sito http://www.aliprandi.org/apriti-standard. A breve sarà disponibile anche il file EPUB per chi dispone di un lettore ebook. Un caro saluto a tutti. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org

1 0

wikileaks v. openleaks
by Marco Ciurcina Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

Molto interessante. In particolare: "That difference, argues Domscheit-Berg, will allow OpenLeaks to accomplish much of the transparency achieved by WikiLeaks, without drawing the same political fury and legal pressure." e "those constraints have also politicized WikiLeaks and forced it to make subjective decisions about its targets". http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/12/09/how-openleaks-the-first- wikileaks-spinoff-will-work/ Ex-WikiLeaker Explains His Spinoff Group, OpenLeaks Dec. 9 2010 - 8:59 pm By ANDY GREENBERG Daniel Domscheit-Berg (pictured here at right before leaving WikiLeaks in September) is launching a spinoff called OpenLeaks. Former WikiLeaks staffer Daniel Domscheit-Berg has always considered Julian Assange’s whistle-blowing site a two-pipe operation: One pipe takes submissions in from anonymous leakers, another publishes them out to an uncensorable web site. But since defecting from WikiLeaks in September and watching the global controversy build around the secret-spilling organization, he’s taking a different approach with his own leak-focused project: Keep the anonymous submissions channel. Ditch the controversial and resource-draining publishing piece altogether. The German Domscheit-Berg, along with several other former Wikileaks staffers, plans to launch a website they’re calling OpenLeaks as early as next week, Domscheit-Berg told Forbes in an interview. Like WikiLeaks, the new site will allow leakers to anonymously submit information to a secure online dropbox. But unlike its parent site, it won’t publish that information itself. Instead, it will allow the source to designate any media or non-governmental organizations he or she chooses and have that information passed on for fact- checking, redaction and publication. That difference, argues Domscheit-Berg, will allow OpenLeaks to accomplish much of the transparency achieved by WikiLeaks, without drawing the same political fury and legal pressure. “To constrain the power of the site, we’re splitting submission from the publication part. We won’t publish any documents ourselves. The whole field is diversified,” says Domscheit-Berg. “No single organization carries all of the responsibility or all of the workload.” Resource constraints, as Assange told me in an interview last month, have forced WikiLeaks to choose only its “highest impact” material for publication. But those constraints have also politicized WikiLeaks and forced it to make subjective decisions about its targets, Domscheit-Berg argues. “We want to be a neutral conduit,” he says. “That’s what’s most politically sustainable as well.” OpenLeaks will integrate with the organizations it passes information to, functioning as a secure tip box on their sites. Those organizations can choose to store leaked information on their own servers or leave it in the hands of OpenLeaks, Domscheit-Berg says. “All this is cryptographically separated in a fashion that everyone has their own dedicated part of the system,” he says. The project will initially partner with five newspapers worldwide, but soon expand to anyone who wants to participate. “Newspapers, NGOs, labor unions, anyone who wants to receive information from anonymous sources, we enable all these people to run something like this,” says Domscheit-Berg. And if the recipient organization chooses not to publish a leak? After a time designated by the source, the leaked material can be sent to other media outlets. “If a newspaper doesn’t publish it, it will be shared,” says Domscheit-Berg. “They can’t just put it in a drawer.” Domscheit-Berg left WikiLeaks in September after a dispute with Assange over the site’s technical quality, its focus on infrequent, high volume leaks, and over Assange’s singular control of the organization even as he was charged with sex crimes in Sweden, as Domscheit-Berg revealed in an interview at the time with Der Spiegel. WikiLeaks has said that he “was suspended and then left of his own accord.” Domscheit-Berg will no doubt tell his own story in detail in an upcoming book planned for January titled Inside WikiLeaks. As for descriptions that have emerged in the media of his site as a “competitor” to WikiLeaks, Domscheit-Berg says that’s a misunderstanding of his mission. “The people working on it don’t think WikiLeaks is headed in the right direction,” he says. “But what we’re aiming at is fundamentally so different that we don’t see it as competition.” When I asked Assange about his thoughts on Domscheit-Berg’s project last month, he also rejected the “competition” idea. “The supply of leaks is very large,” said Assange. “It’s helpful for us to have more people in this industry. It’s protective to us.” More WikiLeaks copycats and spinoffs fighting for their right to exist would no doubt help diffuse the controversy around WikiLeaks, as it struggles against governments around the world that want to shut the site down through both legal and technical means. But Domscheit-Berg wants to distance OpenLeaks from WikiLeaks, and says he has no intention of sharing the controversy that WikiLeaks has fueled since it published the first of a quarter million secret diplomatic cables last week. “I never knew about any diplomatic cables,” he adds. “You can’t imagine how happy I am to be out of this thing.”

1 0

[NEXA]Fenomeno Viber, l'anti Skype per chiamare gratis su iPhone - Repubblica.it
by vale.it＠gmail.com Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2010/12/09/news/fenomeno_viber_l_anti_s…

1 0

La haute commissaire aux droits de l'homme de l'ONU inquiète des pressions sur WikiLeaks
by Paolo Brini Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

La haute commissaire aux droits de l'homme de l'ONU inquiète des pressions sur WikiLeaks La haute commissaire aux droits de l'homme de l'ONU, Navi Pillay, s'est dite inquiète, jeudi 9 décembre, des pressions exercées sur les compagnies offrant des services au site WikiLeaks, qui, ces dernières semaines, a diffusé des milliers de documents secrets de la diplomatie américaine en collaboration avec cinq grands quotidiens internationaux, dont /Le Monde/. /"Je suis préoccupée par des informations faisant état de pressions exercées sur des compagnies privées, dont des banques, des sociétés émettrices de cartes bancaires ainsi que des fournisseurs de sites Internet pour qu'ils ferment leurs lignes de crédit pour des dons destinés à WikiLeaks"/, a expliqué M^me Pillay au cours d'une conférence de presse. Elle a également dénoncé des pressions visant à empêcher l'hébergement du site <http://www.lemonde.fr/documents-wikileaks/article/2010/12/03/besson-contre-…>. Ces dernières /"peuvent être interprétées comme une tentative de censure contre la publication d'informations, et pourrait potentiellement constituer une violation du droit à la liberté d'expression de WikiLeaks"/, a-t-elle ajouté. [...] <http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2010/12/09/la-haute-commissaire…> Ciao, Paolo

1 0

NYTimes: "Hackers Give Web Companies a Test of Free Speech"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

December 8, 2010 Hackers Give Web Companies a Test of Free Speech By ASHLEE VANCE <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/v/ashlee_vance/i…> and MIGUEL HELFT <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/miguel_helft/i…> A hacking free-for-all has exploded on the Web, and Facebook <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.ht…> and Twitter <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/twitter/index.html?in…> are stuck in the middle. On Wednesday, anonymous hackers took aim at companies perceived to have harmed WikiLeaks <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/wikilea…> after its release of a flood of confidential diplomatic documents. MasterCard <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/mastercard-inc/index.…>, Visa <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/visa_inc/index.html?i…> and PayPal, which had cut off people's ability to donate money to WikiLeaks, were hit by attacks that tried to block access to the companies' Web sites and services. To organize their efforts, the hackers have turned to sites like Facebook and Twitter. That has drawn these Web giants into the fray and created a precarious situation for them. Both Facebook and Twitter --- but particularly Twitter --- have received praise in recent years as outlets for free speech. Governments trying to control the flow of information have found it difficult to block people from voicing their concerns or setting up meetings through the sites. At the same time, both Facebook and Twitter have corporate aspirations that hinge on their ability to serve as ad platforms for other companies. This leaves them with tough public relations and business decisions around how they should handle situations as politically charged as the WikiLeaks developments. Some internet experts say the situation highlights the complexities of free speech issues on the Internet, as grassroots Web companies evolve and take central control over what their users can make public. Clay Shirky, who studies the Internet and teaches at New York University <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_yor…>, said that although the Web is the new public sphere, it is actually "a corporate sphere that tolerates public speech." Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, "Any Internet user who cares about free speech or has a controversial or unpopular message should be concerned about the fact that intermediaries might not let them express it." She added, "Your free speech rights are only as strong as the weakest intermediary." [...] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09net.html

1 0

[NEXA]Facebook, guerra agli hacker pro-Assange - Corriere della Sera
by vale.it＠gmail.com Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

http://www.corriere.it/esteri/10_dicembre_09/facebook-contro-hacker_1d0ccf1…

1 0

Fwd: PayPal -
by Masera Anna Dec. 9, 2010

Dec. 9, 2010

il commento ufficiale di PayPal dal Blog ufficiale di PayPal: <https://www.thepaypalblog.com/>https://www.thepaypalblog.com/ Updated Statement about WikiLeaks from PayPal General Counsel, John Muller Media reports today regarding a statement made by our vice president of platform, mobile and new ventures, Osama Bedier, at the LeWeb conference in Paris, have created confusion about PayPal's decision to permanently restrict the account that was raising funds for WikiLeaks. We want to set the record straight. As a global payment service that moves billions of our customers’ funds across borders and across jurisdictions, we are required to comply with laws around the world. Compliance with these laws is something we take very seriously. PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy states that we do not allow any organization to use our service if it encourages, promotes, facilitates or instructs others to engage in illegal activity. This policy is part of an agreement we’ve made with our account holders and with the companies that allow us to process global payments. It’s also an important part of our commitment to protect our customers and to ensure our business can continue operating around the world. In 2008 and 2009, PayPal reviewed and restricted the account associated with WikiLeaks for reasons unrelated to our Acceptable Use Policy. As soon as proper information was received from the account holder, the restrictions were lifted. The account was again reviewed last week after the U.S. Department of State publicized a letter to WikiLeaks on November 27, stating that WikiLeaks may be in possession of documents that were provided in violation of U.S. law. PayPal was not contacted by any government organization in the U.S. or abroad. We restricted the account based on our Acceptable Use Policy review. Ultimately, our difficult decision was based on a belief that the WikiLeaks website was encouraging sources to release classified material, which is likely a violation of law by the source. While the account will remain restricted, PayPal will release all remaining funds in the account to the foundation that was raising funds for WikiLeaks. We understand that PayPal's decision has become part of a broader story involving political, legal and free speech debates surrounding WikiLeaks' activities. None of these concerns factored into our decision. Our only consideration was whether or not the account associated with WikiLeaks violated our Acceptable Use Policy and regulations required of us as a global payment company. Our actions in this matter are consistent with any account found to be in violation of our policies. <PayPal Official John Muller statement.DOCX>

3 2