• US prosecutors to ’help themselves’ to Julian Assange’s possessions | Media

    Material from WikiLeaks founder’s time in Ecuadorian embassy is said to include two manuscripts

    Julian Assange’s belongings from his time living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London will be handed over to US prosecutors on Monday, according to WikiLeaks.

    Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow US prosecutors to “help themselves” to items including legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment, it was claimed.

    WikiLeaks said UN officials and Assange’s lawyers were being stopped from being present. Lawyers said it was an illegal seizure of property, which has been requested by the US authorities. The material is said to include two of Assange’s manuscripts.

    Kristinn Hrafnsson, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, said: “On Monday, Ecuador will perform a puppet show at the embassy of Ecuador in London for their masters in Washington, just in time to expand their extradition case before the UK deadline on 14 June. The Trump administration is inducing its allies to behave like it’s the wild west.”

    Baltasar Garzón, the international legal coordinator for the defence of Assange and WikiLeaks, said: “It is extremely worrying that Ecuador has proceeded with the search and seizure of property, documents, information and other material belonging to the defence of Julian Assange, which Ecuador arbitrarily confiscated, so that these can be handed over to the the agent of political persecution against him, the United States.

    “It is an unprecedented attack on the rights of the defence, freedom of expression and access to information exposing massive human rights abuses and corruption. We call on international protection institutions to intervene to put a stop to this persecution.”

  • ‘I’m Really Opening Myself Up’ : Chelsea Manning Signs Book Deal - The New York Times

    By Charlie Savage

    May 13, 2019

    WASHINGTON — Ever since she was publicly identified as the source who had disclosed a huge trove of military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks in 2011, Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst, has been a polarizing cultural figure — called a traitor by prosecutors, but celebrated as an icon by transparency and antiwar activists. Her life story, and her role in one of the most extraordinary leaks in American history, has been told in news articles, an Off Broadway play and even an opera. But while she spoke at her court-martial and has participated in interviews, Manning herself has not told her own story, until now. Manning is writing a memoir, which Farrar, Straus and Giroux will publish in the winter of 2020, the publisher announced Monday.

    Manning was convicted in 2013 and sentenced to 35 years in prison, the longest sentence ever handed down in an American leak case. After her conviction, Manning announced that she was a transgender woman and changed her name to “Chelsea,” although the military housed her in a Fort Leavenworth prison for male inmates. She had a difficult time there, attempting suicide twice in 2016, before President Barack Obama commuted most of the remainder of her sentence shortly before he left office in January 2017. In the meantime, WikiLeaks published Democratic emails stolen by Russian hackers during the 2016 presidential campaign, transforming its image from what it had been back when Manning decided to send archives of secret files to it.

    Manning reappeared in the news this year, refusing to testify before a grand jury as federal prosecutors continue to build a case against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder. Assange, currently in custody in Britain, is fighting extradition to the United States for a charge that he conspired with Manning to try to crack an encoded password that would have permitted her to log onto a classified computer network under a different person’s account rather than her own, which would have helped her mask her tracks better. She was jailed for two months for contempt over her refusal to answer questions about her interactions with Assange, then freed because the grand jury expired. But she has already been served with a new subpoena prosecutors obtained from a new grand jury and is expected to be jailed again soon.

    Below are edited excerpts from a conversation between Manning and Charlie Savage, a New York Times reporter who has written about her court-martial and her time in military prison.

    Tell me about your book.

    It’s basically my life story up until I got the commutation, from my birth to my time in school and going to the army and going to prison and the court-martial process. It’s a personal narrative of what was going on in my life surrounding that time and what led to the leaks, what led to prison, and how this whole ordeal has really shaped me and changed me. I view this book as a coming-of-age story. For instance, how my colleagues in the intelligence field really were the driving force behind my questioning of assumptions that I had come into the military with — how jaded they were, some of them having done two three four deployments previously. And then also there is a lot of stuff about how prisons are awful, and how prisoners survive and get through being in confinement.

    Do you have a title yet?

    There is no title yet. I am trying very hard to have some control over that, but none has been decided yet. Noreen Malone from New York magazine worked on it with me. She did a lot of the groundwork in terms of the research, and I did the storytelling, so it was a collaborative effort. I’m still going through and editing where she has taken independent sources to help refine my story, fact-check, verify things and provide a third-person perspective in shaping things.

    Is it written in first-person or third-person?

    It is written in first-person, but there are parts of the book that reference material that are independent of me. I’m still under obligation under the court rules and the Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980 to not disclose closed court-martial testimony or verify evidence that was put in the record. Things like that. So I can’t talk about that stuff and I’m not going to, and so I’m trying to keep this and maintain this as more of a personal story. There are parts of it that might reference reports or whatnot but I’m just going to say, “the media reported this, but I’m not confirming or denying it.”

    Are you going to submit the manuscript to the government for a classified information review?

    We’re trying our best to avoid the review process. There is a lot of stuff that is not going to be in the book that people would expect to be in there, but rules are rules and we can’t get around it. It’s more about personal experiences I had rather than anything specific. I’m not trying to relitigate the case, just tell my personal story.

    So if it ends with you getting out of military prison, you’re not going to address your current situation with the grand jury investigating WikiLeaks?
    Editors’ Picks
    From ‘Smallville’ to a Sex Cult: The Fall of the Actress Allison Mack
    How Volunteer Sleuths Identified a Hiker and Her Killer After 36 Years
    ‘Although I Tried to Look Away, I Saw Him Gesture Toward Me’

    No, we’re not planning on including that in this current stage. If there is a book that gets into the more juicy details about that stuff, then we’ll probably get around to that after going through a review process, several years down the road from now, whenever the dust settles. But I think this is more about trying to contextualize my story from my perspective rather than get into the weeds of what is in the record of trial, what is in the documents, what the investigation focused on, because we’re just not able to get into that area.

    It sounds like you are a lot freer to talk about your gender identity than the WikiLeaks issue.

    Yeah. This is less a book about the case and more a book about trials, tribunals, struggles, difficulties, and overcoming them and surviving. If people are expecting to learn a lot more about the court-martial and a lot more about the case, then they probably shouldn’t be interested in this book. But if they want to know more about what it’s like to be me and survive, then there are reams of information in here. It’s much more autobiographical than it is a narrative thriller or crime story or anything like that. I have always pitched this to being very similar to “Wild” by Cheryl Strayed. I’m really opening myself up to some really intimate things in this book, some really very personal moments and much more intimate points of my life that I’ve never disclosed before. You’re probably going to learn more about my love life than about the disclosures.
    Sign up for the Watching Newsletter

    Get recommendations on the best TV shows and films to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

  • Comment #Big_Pharma pénalise-t-il le traitement de l’épidémie des opiacés ? - Actualité Houssenia Writing

    Traduction d’un article de The Conversation par Robin Feldman, professeure de propriété intellectuelle à l’université de Californie.

    Les grandes entreprises pharmacologiques (Big Pharma) utilisent de nombreuses tactiques pour retarder l’arrivée des #génériques et on peut prendre l’exemple des traitements contre l’épidémie des #opiacés.

    • En 2015, 80 % de la croissance des bénéfices des 20 plus grandes entreprises technologiques provenaient de l’augmentation des prix. Et les médicaments aux États-Unis sont largement plus chers que dans d’autres pays. Par exemple, le Syprine, un médicament contre l’insuffisante hépatique, coute moins de 400 dollars pour un an de traitement dans de nombreux pays. Aux États-Unis, ce médicament coute 300 000 dollars. Sovaldi, le médicament contre l’hépatite C de Gilead, coute environ 1 000 dollars à l’étranger. Aux États-Unis, il coute 84 000 dollars.

      Il faudra un motif d’inculpation pour trainer les gens qui décident cela devant la justice. Un truc du genre crime contre l’humanité.

    • Un des aspects intéressants des câbles diplomatiques américains, publiés par Wikileaks, c’était justement qu’une des activités principales des ambassades ricaines dans monde consiste à défendre les intérêts des grands groupes pharmaceutiques américaines.

      Par exemple (quasiment au hasard), ce câble de 2005 à ce sujet au Brésil :

      1. (C) Summary. Ambassador Hugueney of Brazil’s Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) told Ambassador June 6 that U.S. pharmaceutical companies should improve their offers on pricing and/or voluntary licenses for AIDS treatment drugs so as to avoid compulsory licensing by the Ministry of Health (MoH). Hugueney believed movement in the Chamber of Deputies of legislation that would deny patentability to AIDS drugs was likely intended to provide greater leverage to the Ministry of Health in its negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies. The bill’s broad political backing, he observed, makes a presidential veto unlikely should the legislation pass. On the WTO Doha Round of trade negotiations, Hugueney said Brazil will submit a “substantially improved” revised services offer the week of June 6. Hugueney expects to take up the post of Brazil’s Ambassador to the WTO by late August or early September. Hugueney confirmed Brazil’s plan to attend the June 21 to 22 US-EU International Conference on Iraq. End Summary.

      2. (SBU) On June 6, Ambassador met with Clodoaldo Hugueney, Itamaraty’s Under Secretary for Economic and Technological Affairs, to discuss a number of trade issues, principally, pending legislation that would render drugs to prevent and treat AIDS un-patentable, and the continuing threat of compulsory licensing facing the U.S. pharmaceutical companies Gilead Sciences, Abbott Laboratories, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme for their AIDS treatment drugs (ref A). Hugueney was accompanied by his assistant, Miguel Franco, and Otavio Brandelli, Chief of the Ministry’s IPR Division. Ecouns, Commoff, and Econoff accompanied Ambassador.

      AIDS Drugs - Compulsory License Threat and Patent Legislation

      3. (C) Hugueney, who had just returned from Doha negotiations in Geneva, said Itamaraty is following MoH negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies closely and described them as boiling down to issues of pricing or voluntary license/royalty payments. He noted the intense pressure the GoB is under from civil society, particularly NGOs, to issue compulsory licenses. Hugueney agreed the best outcome would be to avoid compulsory licenses, but opined that to do so would require improved offers on price or voluntary licensing from the companies. (Upon relaying this message to the companies, the Merck representative here told us his company was in the process of preparing a more detailed offer, although he did not say that it would be more forthcoming on prices. As for Gilead and Abbott, they have taken Hugueney’s suggestion “under advisement.”) Hugueney further advised the companies to maintain a dialog with the MoH to forestall precipitous, politically motivated action by that Ministry, and encouraged them to explain/present their proposals to a wide array of GoB interlocutors.

  • Here Are The US Government Damage Reports Made In The #WikiLeaks Aftermath Obtained Through Freedom Of Information Laws

    The Department of Defense authorized several damage assessment reports after WikiLeaks released its massive cache of classified documents, and BuzzFeed News can reveal some of their contents for the first time.

    The heavily redacted reports cover a roughly three-year time span. BuzzFeed News obtained more than 300 pages in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.


    Several damage assessment reports say that the records released by WikiLeaks contained details about previously undisclosed civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, which “could be used by the press or our adversaries to negatively impact support for current operations in the region .”

    Regarding the hundreds of thousands of Iraq-related military documents and State Department cables, the report assessed “with high confidence that disclosure of the Iraq data set will have no direct personal impact on current and former U.S. leadership in Iraq .”

    One heavily redacted damage assessment report determined that a different set of documents published the same year, relating to the US war in Afghanistan, would not result in “significant impact” to US operations .

    It did, however, have the potential to cause “serious damage” to “intelligence sources, informants and the Afghan population,” and US and NATO intelligence collection efforts. The most significant impact of the leaks, the report concluded, would likely be on the lives of “cooperative Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors.”

    #etats-unis #propagande #punition

    • lien propre:

      Glen Greenwald, Micah Lee - 20190412

      In April, 2017, Pompeo, while still CIA chief, delivered a deranged speech proclaiming that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” He punctuated his speech with this threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

      From the start, the Trump DOJ has made no secret of its desire to criminalize journalism generally. Early in the Trump administration, Sessions explicitly discussed the possibility of prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information. Trump and his key aides were open about how eager they were to build on, and escalate, the Obama administration’s progress in enabling journalism in the U.S. to be criminalized.

      Today’s arrest of Assange is clearly the culmination of a two-year effort by the U.S. government to coerce Ecuador — under its new and submissive president, Lenín Moreno — to withdraw the asylum protection it extended to Assange in 2012. Rescinding Assange’s asylum would enable the U.K. to arrest Assange on minor bail-jumping charges pending in London and, far more significantly, to rely on an extradition request from the U.S. government to send him to a country to which he has no connection (the U.S.) to stand trial relating to leaked documents.

      Indeed, the Trump administration’s motive here is clear. With Ecuador withdrawing its asylum protection and subserviently allowing the U.K. to enter its own embassy to arrest Assange, Assange faced no charges other than a minor bail-jumping charge in the U.K. (Sweden closed its sexual assault investigation not because they concluded Assange was innocent, but because they spent years unsuccessfully trying to extradite him). By indicting Assange and demanding his extradition, it ensures that Assange — once he serves his time in a London jail for bail-jumping — will be kept in a British prison for the full year or longer that it takes for the U.S. extradition request, which Assange will certainly contest, to wind its way through the British courts.

      The indictment tries to cast itself as charging Assange not with journalistic activities but with criminal hacking. But it is a thinly disguised pretext for prosecuting Assange for publishing the U.S. government’s secret documents while pretending to make it about something else.

      Whatever else is true about the indictment, substantial parts of the document explicitly characterize as criminal exactly the actions that journalists routinely engage in with their sources and thus, constitutes a dangerous attempt to criminalize investigative journalism.

      The indictment, for instance, places great emphasis on Assange’s alleged encouragement that Manning — after she already turned over hundreds of thousands of classified documents — try to get more documents for WikiLeaks to publish. The indictment claims that “discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that ‘after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.’ To which Assange replied, ‘curious eyes never run dry in my experience.’”

      But encouraging sources to obtain more information is something journalists do routinely. Indeed, it would be a breach of one’s journalistic duties not to ask vital sources with access to classified information if they could provide even more information so as to allow more complete reporting. If a source comes to a journalist with information, it is entirely common and expected that the journalist would reply: Can you also get me X, Y, and Z to complete the story or to make it better? As Edward Snowden said this morning, “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.”

      Investigative journalism in many, if not most, cases, entails a constant back and forth between journalist and source in which the journalist tries to induce the source to provide more classified information, even if doing so is illegal. To include such “encouragement” as part of a criminal indictment — as the Trump DOJ did today — is to criminalize the crux of investigative journalism itself, even if the indictment includes other activities you believe fall outside the scope of journalism.

      As Northwestern journalism professor Dan Kennedy explained in The Guardian in 2010 when denouncing as a press freedom threat the Obama DOJ’s attempts to indict Assange based on the theory that he did more than passively receive and publish documents — i.e., that he actively “colluded” with Manning:

      The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction to be made. How did the Guardian, equally, not “collude” with WikiLeaks in obtaining the cables? How did the New York Times not “collude” with the Guardian when the Guardian gave the Times a copy following Assange’s decision to cut the Times out of the latest document dump?

      For that matter, I don’t see how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents. Didn’t the Times collude with Daniel Ellsberg when it received the Pentagon Papers from him? Yes, there are differences. Ellsberg had finished making copies long before he began working with the Times, whereas Assange may have goaded Manning. But does that really matter?

      Most of the reports about the Assange indictment today have falsely suggested that the Trump DOJ discovered some sort of new evidence that proved Assange tried to help Manning hack through a password in order to use a different username to download documents. Aside from the fact that those attempts failed, none of this is new: As the last five paragraphs of this 2011 Politico story demonstrate, that Assange talked to Manning about ways to use a different username so as to avoid detection was part of Manning’s trial and was long known to the Obama DOJ when they decided not to prosecute.

      There are only two new events that explain today’s indictment of Assange: 1) The Trump administration from the start included authoritarian extremists such as Sessions and Pompeo who do not care in the slightest about press freedom and were determined to criminalize journalism against the U.S., and 2) With Ecuador about to withdraw its asylum protection, the U.S. government needed an excuse to prevent Assange from walking free.

      A technical analysis of the indictment’s claims similarly proves the charge against Assange to be a serious threat to First Amendment press liberties, primarily because it seeks to criminalize what is actually a journalist’s core duty: helping one’s source avoid detection. The indictment deceitfully seeks to cast Assange’s efforts to help Manning maintain her anonymity as some sort of sinister hacking attack.

      The Defense Department computer that Manning used to download the documents which she then furnished to WikiLeaks was likely running the Windows operating system. It had multiple user accounts on it, including an account to which Manning had legitimate access. Each account is protected by a password, and Windows computers store a file that contains a list of usernames and password “hashes,” or scrambled versions of the passwords. Only accounts designated as “administrator,” a designation Manning’s account lacked, have permission to access this file.

      The indictment suggests that Manning, in order to access this password file, powered off her computer and then powered it back on, this time booting to a CD running the Linux operating system. From within Linux, she allegedly accessed this file full of password hashes. The indictment alleges that Assange agreed to try to crack one of these password hashes, which, if successful, would recover the original password. With the original password, Manning would be able to log directly into that other user’s account, which — as the indictment puts it — “would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information.”

      Assange appears to have been unsuccessful in cracking the password. The indictment alleges that “Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had ‘no luck so far.’”

      Thus, even if one accepts all of the indictment’s claims as true, Assange was not trying to hack into new document files to which Manning had no access, but rather trying to help Manning avoid detection as a source. For that reason, the precedent that this case would set would be a devastating blow to investigative journalists and press freedom everywhere.

      Journalists have an ethical obligation to take steps to protect their sources from retaliation, which sometimes includes granting them anonymity and employing technical measures to help ensure that their identity is not discovered. When journalists take source protection seriously, they strip metadata and redact information from documents before publishing them if that information could have been used to identify their source; they host cloud-based systems such as SecureDrop, now employed by dozens of major newsrooms around the world, that make it easier and safer for whistleblowers, who may be under surveillance, to send messages and classified documents to journalists without their employers knowing; and they use secure communication tools like Signal and set them to automatically delete messages.

      But today’s indictment of Assange seeks to criminalize exactly these types of source-protection efforts, as it states that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.”

      The indictment, in numerous other passages, plainly conflates standard newsroom best practices with a criminal conspiracy. It states, for instance, that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate on the acquisition and dissemination of the classified records, and to enter into the agreement to crack the password […].” There is no question that using Jabber, or any other encrypted messaging system, to communicate with sources and acquire documents with the intent to publish them, is a completely lawful and standard part of modern investigative journalism. Newsrooms across the world now use similar technologies to communicate securely with their sources and to help their sources avoid detection by the government.

      The indictment similarly alleges that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning.”

  • Double standards in Assange’s arrest (

    Double standards in Assange’s arrest

    #China #politics #international ......

    “The US accusations of violating #press #freedom and cracking down on #dissenters are always against #non-Western countries. If #WikiLeaks targeted countries like #China, #Russia and #Iran, the US and its major #allies will cheer in chorus and label #Assange a #hero who opposes #autocracy”.


  • Legal aid fund launched for #WikiLeaks founder #Assange

    London (AFP) - A British charity helping #whistleblowers around the world on Thursday launched a legal aid fund for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, warning his expulsion from Ecuador’s embassy in London “may be imminent”.

    The Courage Foundation said Assange’s position in the embassy, where he has been living since seeking refuge there in 2012, was “under increasingly serious threat”.

  • Here’s why this media scholar changed her mind and now thinks there’s a ’very strong’ case Russia won the 2016 election for Trump | Alternet

    I originally thought that the idea that the Russians could have used social media to create a substantial impact on the election was absurd. I started to change my mind when I saw the first release of Russian social media and troll campaign ads and messaging during the U.S. Senate hearings in October and November of last year. These ads were a coherent plan and understanding of the presidential election which was consistent with Donald Trump’s political needs.

    If acted on systematically, these ads would have produced a communication effect that on the margins could have affected enough votes to change the outcome of the election in his favor. If the Russians didn’t have a coherent theory of what it took for Donald Trump to win — or what it would take to make it more likely that Hillary Clinton would lose — then all their machinations would not have mattered. But the Russians knew who to mobilize.

    The Russians were trying to mobilize evangelicals and white conservative Catholics. The Russians also knew that they needed to mobilize veterans and military households. The Russians knew they had to demobilize Bernie Sanders supporters and liberals, especially young people. The Russians were also attempting to shift the voters they could not demobilize over to Jill Stein.

    You add that together with demobilizing African-American voters with messaging that Hillary Clinton is bad for the black community, and then Clinton’s whole messaging strategy is at risk. If Hillary Clinton can’t mobilize the black vote at levels near Barack Obama’s, although not the same level, then she is in trouble.

    I then started to examine where the Russians and their trolls spent their time and attention. They were spending more of it on trying to demobilize African-American voters by emphasizing things that group may not like about Hillary Clinton. When a person casts a vote they are not thinking about every detail or issue relative to a candidate. Voters make decisions based on what is most important in that moment of time, what is on the top of their mind.

    So if you remind voters who are African-American that at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency there was a very high level of increased incarceration of African-Americans on drug charges then an African-American voter may say, “Maybe I should think about Hillary Clinton differently.”

    If you remember her “superpredator” comment and take it to be about black people in general and not about gangs specifically, then you as an African-American voter may be less likely to support her.

    By featuring these types of messages, the Russians were increasing the likelihood that while you may not be likely to cast a vote for Donald Trump, you are more likely to stay home and not vote for Hillary Clinton.

    I then started to wonder whether maybe there was enough troll activity that was addressed to the right constituencies to have impacted the margins of the vote. The question then becomes, did the Russians and their trolls target the right voters in the right places? We still don’t know that.

    The social media platforms know the answer, but they have not released the information. The trolls alone could have swung the electorate. But in my judgment the WikiLeaks hacks against the DNC is a much stronger case. There we see a clear effect on the news media agenda. We know from decades of communication scholarship that if you change the media agenda you then change the criteria that people vote on. The shift in the media agenda from October forward was decisively against Hillary Clinton. And the questions in the presidential debates which were based on information stolen by WikiLeaks and the Russians disadvantaged Clinton and, looking at the polling data, predicted the vote.

    President Trump is better at commanding the agenda than he is at any other single thing that he as a communicator does. The press has been an accomplice in the process of ceding agenda control to him by virtue of his tweeting — and having the press respond immediately, as if every tweet is presumed to be newsworthy. Donald Trump has the capacity to get whatever he wants the public to focus on by directing the cable news agenda. We really should ask: Aren’t there other things we ought to be paying more attention to? How often are we being distracted from something that Trump does not want us to pay attention to? Being distracted by his effective use of tweets to set an alternative agenda.

    Fox News is de facto Trump’s state-sponsored media. How does this impact American political culture?

    We are increasingly going into ideological enclaves to get our news. To the extent that people find the news compatible with what they already believe, that means they are not being exposed to alternative interpretations of reality and alternative points of view. What is unprecedented about the relationship between Fox News and the president of the United States is the extent to which what is said and shown on Fox News appears to influence what is said and featured by the president of the United States. The traditional model of agenda-setting is that the president sets the agenda and the news media follows. This reversal with Donald Trump and Fox News is something new.

    #Politique #Médias_sociaux #USA #Trump

  • A relire

    Wikileaks: Egyptian media and journalists go to Saudi for financing | MadaMasr

    Since the Wikileaks website began posting leaked documents from the Saudi Arabian government, the issue of the Kingdom financing Egyptian media channels, journalists and researchers has garnered major attention. 

    While the first group of documents released on the website on June 19 contained details regarding funding requests by pro-regime journalist Mostafa Bakry and religious preacher Amr Khalid, unpublished documents received by Mada Masr, upon an agreement with Wikileaks, has shed light on new names and details.

    Requests for funding from the Saudi government varied, and in some cases was in exchange for writing articles, the fees for which were collected from the embassy.

    One of the documents, titled “Bill of the representative of Dar al-Helal Institution,” is a memo raised by the head of the media affairs department at the Saudi Foreign Ministry to the deputy minister of culture and media in the Kingdom, requesting the disbursement of a check of US$68,000 to the state-owned Egyptian Dar al-Helal in February 2012 “for publishing a series of weekly articles throughout the pilgrimage season 1432 H on the achievements of Saudi Arabia in renovating and expanding the two holy mosques and other recent projects.”

    During the period referred to in the cables, writer Abdel Qader Shohaieb was head of the board of Al-Helal institution, while Hamdi Rizk, a staunch supporter of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government, was editor-in-chief of Al-Mosawar, one of its publications. Al-Helal is considered one of the oldest media publishing houses in Egypt and the region.

    Other publications were not as successful in collecting funds in exchange for publishing articles favoring the Kingdom, especially when the request for funding came after publishing without prior coordination.

  • Lenín Moreno, président de la République de l’Équateur, admet ouvertement que si Assange n’a plus accès à l’internet, c’est pour lui interdire de diffuser ses opinions sur les sujets politiques états-uniens et le séparatisme en Catalogne.

    G. Bretaña, Ecuador contemplan posible solución para Assange

    Moreno destacó también que Assange sigue sin internet. Ecuador le quitó al fundador de Wikileaks el acceso a ésta cuando Assange expuso su opinión sobre políticas estadounidenses y sobre el conflicto separatista catalán en España.

    “Entiendo que (Assange) no tiene ese tipo de servicios precisamente para evitar que lo vuelva a hacer”, señaló Moreno. “Pero si es que el señor Assange hace el compromiso de no participar en este tipo de opiniones acerca de la política de países hermanos, como ha sido con la política estadounidese o de España, entonces en ese momento no tendríamos ningún problema en que él pueda seguir utilizando estos mecanismos”.

    Comme le fait remarquer la campagne #FreeAssange, la version en anglais de cette dépêche de l’AP ne fait absolument pas mention de cette affirmation scandaleuse :

  • Julian Assange a renoncé à l’asile accordé par l’Equateur afp/pym - 25 Septembre 2018 - RTS

    Le fondateur du site internet WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, réfugié à l’ambassade d’Equateur à Londres depuis 2012, a renoncé à l’asile accordé par Quito, selon une lettre signée de sa main.
    Dans ce courrier, daté du 4 décembre 2017, Julian Assange renonce à l’asile accordé dans le cadre d’une stratégie du gouvernement, qui n’a pas abouti et qui visait à le nommer ensuite diplomate équatorien en Grande-Bretagne, puis en Russie.

    Le créateur de WikiLeaks a renoncé à l’asile quelques jours avant que Quito lui octroie la nationalité équatorienne le 12 décembre, puis tente de le nommer diplomate afin qu’il puisse continuer à vivre dans l’ambassade de Londres, voire aller en mission à Moscou.

    Crainte d’une extradition
    Julian Assange s’est réfugié dans la représentation diplomatique équatorienne il y a six ans pour, initialement, éviter d’être extradé en Suède où il était accusé de viol, procédure qui a été classée.

    Aujourd’hui, il craint de sortir de l’ambassade et d’être arrêté, puis extradé vers les Etats-Unis pour avoir diffuser via WikiLeaks des milliers de documents confidentiels de la diplomatie américaine.

  • Je crois qu’il se passe quelque chose d’important par ici :
    Pas seulement parce que le patron de twitter explique pourquoi #twitter ne va pas clôturer le compte de #Alex_Jones ni de #Infowars, contrairement à la plupart des autres réseaux sociaux, mais parce qu’il réaffirme le besoin de confronter les opinions et surtout de contrer les fausses informations de manière visible, chose que peut se permettre un twitter où les commentaires sont beaucoup plus lus qu’ailleurs...

    If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure, rather than straightforward principles we enforce (and evolve) impartially regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that’s constructed by our personal views that can swing in any direction. That’s not us.
    Accounts like Jones’ can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions. This is what serves the public conversation best.

    Je suis tombée là dessus grâce à un tweet de #Olivier_Tesquet qui fait un article super complet pour telerama sur la descente aux enfers des #GAFAM de Alex Jones :

    La “Big Tech” à l’épreuve du roi des conspirationnistes

    En privant Alex Jones, conspirationniste en chef de l’extrême-droite américaine, de ses comptes Facebook, Spotify ou Youtube, les géants de l’Internet prennent le risque d’ouvrir un débat sur la privatisation de la liberté d’expression.,n5756062.php

    #liberte_d_expression #conspirationnisme #complotisme #extreme_droite ...

  • Breaking Software Integrity with NTFS Streams

    Break Hashing Integrity with NTFS StreamsF*ck software integrityFor security purposes, many applications use hashing to ensure software integrity. On Windows based NTFS file systems, there is a weakness. Files can be hidden within or behind files. Under certain circumstances, these hidden files can be hashed and remain hidden. Intrigued yet? As luck would have it, WikiLeaks leaked out part of an old CIA operations manual during a mega disclosure in 2016/17. One leaky technique caught my eye, hiding data in NTFS data streams. The full instructions were lacking; however, since some of us have secretly have enjoyed using this technique for many years, it was time to spread the joy. #microsoft kindly posted a blog on it back in 2013 from a developer perspective. Not an evil (puts hoodie on) (...)

    #ntfs-streams #hashing-integrity #women-in-tech #cybersecurity

  • WikiLeaks deleted a tweet linking to the full ’Fire & Fury’ text - Business Insider
    Des fois que vous auriez manqué de télécharger le livre voici une source pour en trouver une copie.

    The radical pro-transparency group WikiLeaks posted, and then quickly deleted, a tweet linking to the full text of “Fire & Fury: Inside the Trump White House” on Sunday.

    Later on Sunday, WikiLeaks reposted the link to what it said was the “full text” of the book.

    “Fire & Fury,” by author Michael Wolff, paints President Donald Trump and his administration in an unflattering light and features several explosive quotes from the former White House chief strategist, Steve Bannon.

    Among other things, Bannon called Trump’s daughter Ivanka “dumb as a brick,” and he also said Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 was “treasonous” and “unpatriotic.”

    After Trump and his allies went on a scorched-earth offensive against Bannon, Wolff, and the book, Bannon issued a lengthy apology on Sunday, walking back many of his comments and reaffirming his “unwavering” support for Trump.

    #USA #politique #Trump

  • 10 Things You Should Know About Julian Assange | Alternet

    Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is more loved, and more hated, than ever. And just who is doing the loving and the hating is more complicated than ever.

    In his rise from libertarian hacker to global publisher, Assange pioneered a new kind of power, the power to disrupt the secrecy of the national security state. With the help of Chelsea Manning, the silver-haired Australian published the “Collateral Murder” video, which showed the world the reality of the war in Iraq, and the State Department cables, which showed the realities of American diplomacy. So a lot of people admired him.

    Last week’s disclosure that Assange collaborated with Donald Trump Jr. during the 2016 presidential campaign has generated another blizzard of headlines—and a lot of confusion—about the world-famous transparency advocate.

    Here’s what you need to know about Assange.

    #Julian_Assange #Wikileaks #Trump #Libertarianisme

  • Julian Assange, a Man Without a Country | Août 2017

    ...for the ’crime’ of journalism



    For some time, Assange has adopted the media habits of the powerful, restricting his appearances to brief, high-profile television interviews, conversations with friendly interlocutors, managed press events, and Twitter. On November 5th, days before the election, in a TV interview with one of his fiercest defenders, he declared, “We can say that the Russian government is not the source” of the election e-mails—a denial that did nothing to quell a growing suspicion, even among close supporters, that he was not being honest. “He says they’re not Russians,” one of them told me. “Well, he can’t know that. It could be his source was a front for the Russians. I think the truth is important, however it’s acquired, but if he knew it was the Russians, and didn’t declare it, that would be a problem for me.”

    The problem was obvious. WikiLeaks, like many journalistic organizations, has long insisted on keeping its sources secret. However, Assange was not merely maintaining silence; he was actively pushing a narrative about his sourcing, in which Russia was not involved. He once told me, “WikiLeaks is providing a reference set to undeniably true information about the world.” But what if, in the interest of source protection, he was advancing a falsehood that was more significant than the reference set itself? Arguably, his election publications only underscored what was known about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton. His denials, meanwhile, potentially obfuscated an act of information warfare between two nuclear-armed powers.

    That the stakes were so high was a potent indication of the immense power that WikiLeaks has acquired since it was founded, in 2006. Assange projects an image of his organization as small and embattled—as if it had not changed much since the days when he and a few friends were the only people involved. But today, he told me, the WikiLeaks annual budget runs in the millions of dollars, supplied partly by donations that are funnelled through N.G.O.s. In 2016 alone, WikiLeaks raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors in the United States. “He has money in tax havens,” one colleague told me. “They have so much money in bitcoin it’s ridiculous—meanwhile, there are all these poor people who are chipping in money who feel like he is not getting enough support to eat.” In Assange’s view, the donations provide a level of editorial independence that few mainstream competitors have.

    Assange has increasingly used the money to offer rewards for information: fifty thousand dollars for footage of a hospital bombed in Afghanistan; a hundred and twenty thousand for documents about international trade negotiations. When Trump implied that he had taped his White House meetings with James Comey, Assange tweeted, “WikiLeaks offers US $100K for the Trump-Comey tapes.” At one stroke, he appeared to endorse Trump’s bogus claim about the tapes and also implied that WikiLeaks was politically agnostic by seeking them. More significantly, he used the occasion to encourage supporters to donate, so that he could purchase the tapes—which, unsurprisingly, proved not to exist.

    The idea that WikiLeaks has problems with accountability sends Assange into angry fits. “Look at all the accountability that is thrown at us!” he told me in the Embassy one evening, nodding at the walls to indicate hidden surveillance devices. “Every second of every day!” He cited the government scrutiny, and relentless journalists, always ready to pounce when he makes a misstep. Raising his voice, he said, “WikiLeaks is probably the most held-to-account organization on earth!”



    #Assange #journalisme #Wikileaks #London #surveillance #bitcoin #Russie #Équateur #Suède

  • WikiLeaks - Macron Campaign Emails

    Today, Monday 31 July 2017, WikiLeaks publishes a searchable archive of 21,075 unique verified emails associated with the French presidential campaign of Emmanual Macron. The emails range from 20 March 2009 to 24 April 2017. The 21,075 emails have been individually forensically verified by WikiLeaks through its DKIM system.

    The full archive of 71,848 emails with 26,506 attachments from 4,493 unique senders is provided for context.

    WikiLeaks only certifies as verified the 21,075 emails marked with its green “DKIM verified” banner however based on statistical sampling the overwheling majority of the rest of the emails archive are authentic.


    The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s “founding virtue” or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”.

    Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.

    Assange’s ability to defend himself in such a #Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.

    • Liberté d’expression Howard Zinn
      Le Premier Amendement en question

      Tous ceux qui grandissent aux états-unis apprennent que ce pays a le bonheur infini de jouir de la liberté d’expression. Et nous devons cette chance au fait que notre Constitution contient une Déclaration des droits dont le premier amendement s’ouvre sur cette affirmation décisive : « Le Congrès ne fera aucune loi relativement à l’établissement d’une religion ou en interdisant le libre exercice ; ou restreignant la liberté de parole ou de la presse ; ou le droit du peuple de s’assembler paisiblement et d’adresser des pétitions au gouvernement pour une réparation de ses torts. »

      L’idée selon laquelle le Premier Amendement garantit effectivement notre liberté d’expression est un élément de l’idéologie de notre société. D’ailleurs la foi dans les serments écrits noir sur blanc et l’aveuglement à l’égard des réalités politiques et économiques semblent profondément ancrées dans cet ensemble de croyances propagé par les faiseurs d’opinion américains. La ferveur quasi religieuse qui s’exprima à l’occasion de l’année du bicentenaire de l’élaboration de la Constitution en a livré suffisamment de témoignages.

      Pourtant, comme je vais tenter de le montrer maintenant, penser que la seule existence du Premier Amendement garantit notre liberté d’expression est une profonde erreur. Une erreur qui peut, parfois, nous coûter non seulement la liberté mais également, dans certaines circonstances, la vie.

  • Wikileaks Attorneys Blast Citizenfour Maker Poitras

    We find it hard to comprehend why Poitras, who played an important role in national security journalism, has chosen to allow a dubious quest for self-discovery to undermine people working courageously to protect press freedoms.

    Risk might win attention for Poitras by pandering to tabloid narratives about its subjects, but it has done a great disservice to her fellow documentarians, and has profoundly betrayed her friends, her colleagues and her journalistic integrity.

    • The reason for the shift seems to be contained in the newly added voiceover, in which Poitras divulges that she was involved in an intimate relationship with one of the film’s primary subjects, award-winning journalist Jacob Appelbaum.

      Appelbaum appears prominently in Poitras’ Citizenfour as well as in Risk. Although he does not work for WikiLeaks, Poitras conflates WikiLeaks with the organization he did work for, Tor, and makes him a central focus of the current version of Risk.

      The Cannes premiere of Risk portrayed Appelbaum in a flattering light and Poitras did not disclose the nature of their relationship at that time. Now Poitras states, “I thought I could ignore the contradictions. I thought they were not part of the story. I was so wrong. They’re becoming the story.” But if sexism is becoming the story, it is because Poitras has chosen to focus on it.

      Poitras was criticized after Cannes for appearing to be overly sympathetic to WikiLeaks. Instead of providing us with a more objective portrayal of her subject matter, she has re-framed her story to turn Risk into a film by Laura Poitras about Laura Poitras; a rather late coming-of-age story about the filmmaker discovering that there is sexism in her social and professional circles.

      Instead of a documentary about the abuse of state power and WikiLeaks’ important role in exposing it, the emphasis of the film is now to highlight hotly disputed claims about an ex-boyfriend.

      Et encore autour du Jacob…

  • How a Snowdenista Kept the NSA Leaker Hidden in a Moscow Airport
    (February 2015, Sara Corbett)

    Describes Wikileaks’ editor Sarah Harrison who was hiding with Edward Snowden in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport for nearly six weeks in summer 2013. Where exactly is unknown, and many reporters have been searching them at the airport for weeks, even buying business class tickets just to have access to VIP lounges.

    She was living in Australia, but left immediately when called by Julian Assange who asked her if she could take up the mission of escaping Snowden safely from Hong Kong.

    If her job was to help keep Snowden safe and hidden, she did it masterfully. For 39 days, the two managed to camp out in the airport transit zone, foiling the media hordes trying to find them. TV crews patrolled the restaurants and pay-to-enter VIP lounges. Reporters grilled airport staff about what they knew, which was invariably nothing. “I’ve spent up to eighteen hours a day beyond passport control and security looking for Snowden,” an ABC News employee reported glumly in a blog post a week into the hunt. “There is an irrational fear, even late at night, that the moment I call it quits he’ll come strolling down the hall. . . .”


    Harrison says she didn’t actually meet Snowden until they climbed into a car together on Sunday morning to head to the airport. Harrison was dressed in jeans and flip-flops. Snowden, too, looked casual. The idea was that they might pass for a young couple headed off on vacation. On the drive, they said very little. “I was just so nervous and concentrated on the next steps,” she remembers.

    They boarded the Moscow-bound Aeroflot plane, and it wasn’t until the plane was airborne that Snowden turned to her and spoke what was almost his first complete sentence: “I didn’t expect that WikiLeaks was going to send a ninja to get me out.”

    Harrison says that she and Snowden disembarked in Moscow and went to check in for their next flight, which is when they learned of his canceled passport. Citing “security reasons,” she won’t provide specific details about where they stayed during the days that ensued, saying only that they shared a single, windowless room, did their laundry in the sink, watched movies on their laptops, and quickly grew tired of airport food. “If I have to ever eat another Burger King meal, I’ll die,” she says.


    • Je dois dire que je me demande vraiment comment Snowden n’est pas devenu fou à Cheremetievo. J’ai passé à plusieurs reprises, à l’aller ou au retour en Mongolie, des attentes de correspondances en salle de transit pouvant aller jusqu’à 10 heures et je dois dire que ça a toujours été une épreuve particulièrement déprimante.

      (prise sur un témoignage de transit en 2016 )

      Les lieux, quoique rénovés, n’ont pas tellement changé (la dernière fois, c’était en 2003) si ce n’est qu’ils ont (ENFIN !) viré les épouvantables « poêles à frire » du plafond (apparemment, des sections de pipelines circulaires de différentes longueurs qui « ornaient » le plafond en continu sur la totalité de l’espèce de coursive circulaire…

      Pendant tout le temps (plus d’un mois !) où il est resté là-bas, je me disais comment fait-il ?. J’avais fini par me convaincre qu’il avait forcément été exfiltré de la zone avant qu’il ne pète définitivement un cable… Bon peut-être que le nouveau plafond était plus supportable, après tout.

    • @simplicissimus :

      J’avais fini par me convaincre qu’il avait forcément été exfiltré de la zone avant qu’il ne pète définitivement un cable…

      Ce n’est pas improbable.
      Selon les récits il aurait passé son temps dans une chambre sans fenêtres dans la zone de transit. Le seul hôtel dans cette zone en 2013 était le Vozdushny V-Express Capsule Hotel, situé à côté d’un Burger King qui venait d’ouvrir.
      Or, selon une interview d’un garçon travaillant à la réception, il n’était pas possible de rester à l’hôtel (tarif à l’heure) pour plus d’un jour. Snowden y aurait passé 39 jours. Donc ou bien cette règle avait été abrogée pour Snowden, ou bien Sarah Harrison n’a pas dit la vérité sur le fait qu’ils y sont restés pendant 39 jours.

      Sur le site de l’hôtel les prix ne sont indiqués que pour max 24h :

      46 rooms in a transit zone (after immigration control) of Terminal E on the 3rd floor. Capsule Hotel is in the ideal location for transit passengers as you don’t have to leave the secure part of the terminal.

      vue des chambres :

      Aussi, Il y a un Novotel quelques km plus loin de l’aéroport, utilisé par les services secrets pour des débiefings, et selon un ancien agent de la KGB, eux ne sont pas empêchés d’entrer et sortir la zone de transit.

      source : Epstein 2017, « How America Lost its Secrets », p.256

      L’hypothèse d’Epstein :

      The possibility that Snowden was staying elsewhere would help explain the futile search for him by a large number of reporters over those thirty-nine days.


      Despite this intensive search [of reporters and paid airport employees], none of them found a single person who had seen Snowden, although his image was constantly shown on airport TV screens.

  • WikiLeaks reveals vast CIA spying, cyberwar operation - World Socialist Web Site

    #WikiLeaks reveals vast CIA spying, cyberwar operation
    8 March 2017

    The bitter internecine struggle within the US state apparatus and ruling political establishment, featuring unsubstantiated Democratic claims of Russian hacking in support of Trump, on the one hand, and Trump’s own charge that his campaign was bugged by Obama, on the other, was overshadowed Tuesday by a massive release of CIA documents by WikiLeaks.

    The 8,761 documents contained in what WikiLeaks has described as “the largest intelligence publication in history” have begun to lay bare a vast system of surveillance, hacking and cyberwarfare directed against the people of the United States and the entire planet.

  • 3月8日のツイート

    The latest Papier!… Thanks to @MaximeAdive @MonikaSeelig @the7percentclub #ycrazymind #amwriting posted at 09:13:28

    Top story: Kyle Griffin on Twitter: "I just can’t get over this argument. "Loo……, see more posted at 08:39:23

    Top story: Turn Ten Into Millions - Millionaires Empire…, see more posted at 06:29:35

    Top story: WikiLeaks Releases Trove of Alleged C.I.A. Hacking Documents…, see more posted at 04:16:19

    Top story: Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "122 vicious prisoners, released by the ……, see more posted at (...)

  • Anatoly Kucherena, Snowden’s Russian lawyer wrote a novel about this story, “The Time of the Octopus” (January 2017)

    In Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, fugitive US intelligence officer Joshua Kold is held in limbo, unable to leave the airport’s transit area. He is on the run, after blowing the lid off the terrifying reach of covert American global surveillance operations. Will the Russian authorities grant him asylum, or will they hand him over the clutches of the global octopus eager for revenge for his betrayal.

    This book is a fiction, but it is based on Kucherena’s own interviews with Snowden at Sheremetyevo airport, and provides the basis for Oliver Stone’s major Hollywood movie ‘Snowden’.

    It took Kucherena a month to negotiate Snowden’s stay and three months to write “Time of the Octopus.” According to WikiLeaks, Stone paid a million dollars for the book.

    The original book in Russian. “The whole truth about the American agent on the run,” the cover boasts. Also: “Oliver Stone is currently shooting a film based on this book.”:

    The book in English:

    Anatoly Kucherena:

    #Snowden #Edward_Snowden

  • #WikiLeaks - #CIA espionage orders for the 2012 French presidential election

    CIA espionage orders for the last French presidential election
    All major French political parties were targeted for infiltration by the CIA’s human ("HUMINT") and electronic ("SIGINT") spies in the seven months leading up to France’s 2012 presidential election. The revelations are contained within three CIA tasking orders published today by WikiLeaks as context for its forth coming CIA Vault 7 series. Named specifically as targets are the French Socialist Party (PS), the National Front (FN) and Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) together with current President Francois Hollande, then President Nicolas Sarkozy, current round one presidential front runner Marine Le Pen, and former presidential candidates Martine Aubry and Dominique Strauss-Khan.

    #espionnage #france #élections