Wikileaks: What the good book says

“There is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, nothing hidden that will not be made known. Everything you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight; what you have whispered in locked rooms will be proclaimed from the rooftops.”  – Luke 12:2-3

The Bible is not really my cup of tea but this quote is spot on..   so too is the article where I found it -on Daniel Ellsberg's blog, citing a press release by the 'Institue for Public Accuracy' about Wikileaks and the American government's problem with integrity, justice and accountability. 

It was Ellsberg that leaked the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War - and the press release is signed by list of heavy weights all familiar with the predicament Julian Assange & Private Manning now find themselves in.

All power to their elbow...  Go read!

Wikileaks: the messenger and the hydra's teeth

You can understand that it is uncomfortable for some to find their dirty washing hanging out in public.  I am all for privacy...

But whose privacy? Do we want privacy for government and surveillance of the individual?  Or the opposite.  Transparency in government and privacy for the individual?

Governments, senior politicians and powerbrokers everywhere are leaning hard to close down Wikileaks...   their DNS servers, their Paypal account.  One is struck by the effort going into closing down the source of the leak - rather than admit to or address the issues raised.. 

But why shoot the messenger?  Whistleblowing is a recognised and protected principle.  Journalistic sources are protected  - for instance in the Swedish constitútion - and in many countries including the US, there are laws protecting individuals rights to blow the whistle on misdoings and get protection for it...   In Britain for instance the Public Interest Disclosure Act covers dicslosure of

• a criminal offence;
• the breach of a legal obligation;
• a miscarriage of justice;
• a danger to the health or safety of any individual;
• damage to the environment; or
• deliberate covering up of information tending to show any of the above five matters

Do the cablegate leaks count?  Well judging by the international coverage of them I'd say the case for public interest is proven.... 

So do we want THEM to put the genie back in the bottle?  To go back to feeding us a massaged variant of the truth?  Well... mixing my metaphors a little - it looks like it is not going to happen.  Wikileak mirrors are springing up all over to carry the torch.  Cut off a head and another grows in its place.

The truth will out... inconvenient or not...

For information on Wikileaks mirrors check here...

This is not the party you are looking for..

Aftonbladet have a nifty link to a 30 question test that will map your political views and compare them to EU political parties - either those where you live - or in Europe as a whole. There's just one small thing they forgot to mention. In the Aftonbladet version of the test they have cut three Swedish parties off the list- which to say, they have actively edited out three of the parties standing in next month's election -ostensibly because they don't currently hold seats in the EU parliament.

If you want to try the uncensored version of the test you can find it over at EU Profiler. Jolly good fun it is too.... apparently I ought to be voting for the Luxembourg Communist Party!

(Oh yes.. the three missing parties: Sverige Demokraterna, Feministisk Initiativ & Piratpartiet)

In search of the Pied Piper

In  two curious articles Dagens Nyheter has been trying to dish the dirt on who is behind the opposition in the blogosphere to Swedens new FRA law.  That's the one that says the state can monitor all cross border communications all the time.

It is in a sense a good question -  political 'rent a mobs' have been a part of politics since roman times.  But is it relevant here?  People on all sides of the political spectrum have spoken out against this law and it's implications for personal privacy.  It would come as no surprise to find that those that object to it include people with intellect, initiative and resources - and that some of those are prepared to actively oppose it.  And yes, some of the people that think it's wrong might have spoken with one another and said "What the f*** are we going to do about this crock of s***."

Does that make a storm in the blogosphere into a conspiracy?  I think not. If PR companies could readily manipulate what a stream of individuals choose to write about then I'm sure the relevant question would be 'How much money and resources did the government lay down to generate a favourable tide of opinion to support this?'.  

Though perhaps that is still a relevant question - just how much has the goverment spent to try and 'form' public opinion on this question.  And just as pointedly - how much has the FRA spent to promote the introduction of this law.  What is their mandate to try and form public opinion after their own interests (It is not after all for them to decide what is in the best interests of either the state or the population).

And for that matter... the one group we know is being paid to write about this are journalists - own up guys.  What's your agenda?

Chopsticks

I was on the Political Compass site yesterday - interested to see where my views landed me...
(.. the answer to that was that they land somewhat close to those of the Dalai Lama)
I then went on to check out the same political compass on Facebook. Reading the wall discussions there it suddenly struck me how much of political discussion starts from a position of selfishness - particularly prevalent in the American 'Liberal' position which, to me at least can be summarised as "I want the freedom to not give a s*** about anyone else."

I was reminded of an old parable about heaven and hell. There are many versions it seems, used by everyone from the Pope downwards.. I found mine here... and it goes like this..

Once upon a time, in a temple nestled in the misty end of south hill, lived a pair of monks. One old and one young.

'What is the difference between Heaven and Hell?' the young monk asked his learned master one day. 'There are no material differences,' replied the old monk peacefully.

'None at all?' asked the confused young monk. 'No. Both Heaven and Hell look the same. They both have a dining hall with a big hot pot in the centre. In it there are some delicious noodles boiling, giving off an appetizing scent,' said our old priest. " and there are people sitting around the pot in just the same way.'

'Each diner has a pair of meter-long chopsticks to eat with." the zen master went on. 'but in Hell, no matter how hard they try, people always fail to get the noodles into their mouths,and they are all starving'.

'But isn't it the same for the people in Heaven?' asked the junior.

'Not at all. In Heaven they each feed the person sitting opposite them. That is the difference between Heaven and Hell.' said the old monk.