John Young on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:53:01 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Nick Davies: The story behind the Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs (Guardian) |
I have a hair up my ass about Wikileaks, got it? The Guardian account is not quite true, perhaps a lot not true. 1. The Aghan files are digital not paper and they have not been authenticated. Wikileaks customarily provides digitally-hash authentications for its publications, this has not been done in this release. 2. No raw files have been published, all versions have been artfully packaged by their hosts, including Wikileaks, to fit the various purposes of the hosts. 3. The NY Times has published none of the file versions Wikileaks has published, instead has written substitute narratives for each file used. You want more, it suggests, see Wikileaks not us, we know better, so our lawyers order. 4. Every MSM host has published disclaimers about the authenticity of the materials further into the story despite the attention getting headlines, leads and commentaries. So the lawyers order, CYA, beware Wikileaks who has not assests, no known address, no known existence beyong a flakey website and spokesphantom. 5. Claims have been exaggerated by every host. Nobody has read all the files, instead cited either 90 some thousand or more accurately some 75 thousand. Then proceeded to bombast about the files, cherry-picking a few (the Guardian picked 300 or so, an insignificant .33 per cent of them). 6. The deal cut with spooky Wikileaks to distribute the material among three more or less reputable outlets has not been reported in sufficient detail to know what actually took place: how samples were provided, who vetted the samples, what legal arrangements were made to protect the MSM from liability against ghosts, who were the negotiators, was the deal verbal or written, was there money involved, and if so, how much and for whom, including fees for legal, travel, infrastructure, odds and ends expenses, the usual way bribes are concealed and tracked by the vast anti-money laundering apparatus. 7. The NY Times has admitted it briefed the White House on the material, and who else is unknown. Nor is it known whether the other MSM checked with their authorities. Nor whether Wikileaks was told of these disclosures, agreed to them, or protested. It would be surprising if the Guardian, subject to the Official Secrets Act, did not do what it usually does, agree to censorship and keep it quiet or camouflage by exaggerated declarations of courage and daring. 8. Wikileaks getting in bed with the MSM has not been admitted heretofore, although this may mean it has been going on covertly -- as an outgrowth of WL's attempt to auction its material to highest bidders, supposedly a failure, but perhaps more successful than revealed. Assange is a master at hiding his assets and providing hynotic illusions. 9. Nor does this instance address the likelihood that is reveals an ongoing practice of Wikileaks to engage in contraband material covertly with bidders of less than honorable MSM stripes. Commong practice of authoritative information peddlers is to enrich covertly under cover of noble public service, to wit, spies, govs, banks, edus, ngos, religions, benefactors. 10. Nor has this instance revealed credible information about cloaked Wikileaks operation, staff and "supporters" the number of which, vary considerably, as does the amount of funds raised. 11. Why willing suspension of disbelief has been so powerfully successful in this instance is difficult to understand due to the lack of information provided. The Guardian account published here is ludicrously misleading, slathered with overly dramatic claims, and lacking in verfifiable evidence. To be sure that is a hallmark of "bombshell" disclosures of which Wikileaks has demonstrated mastery, having learned from its eager tutors facing desperate need for fund-rasing allurements all alike. 12. Finally, and not at all least, Wikileaks protection of its sources verges on criminal deception. Its website is leaky beyond belief, as though it is meant to fool no security export only the gullible. Wink, wink. Collateral damage of its sources is accepted as a consequence of the generals' ambitions. There is no assured security of digital transactions of any sort, encrypted or plain, and Assange knows this and knows the authorities know this. Packet tracing and other methodologies can track down any digital source -- Internet router manufacturers openly advertise this capability and there are hundreds of firms doing just that for spies, govs, coms and edu researchers. 13. The ease with which Ellsberg has been induced to front this operation, and now his banner waver, the NYT. is remarkable. As if senility and remembrance of glory days have come into play. Assange is a master of that kind of flattery done best out of sight. Bill Keller's apologia for publishing the story is almost tearjerkingly like what other MSM are pumping frantically to keep the lights from going out. At 09:20 AM 7/26/2010, you wrote: >original to: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-war-logs-back-story > >Afghanistan war logs: Story behind biggest leak in intelligence history # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org