Bushman's Revenge - Discografia básica
3 minutes ago
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Real Scenes: Berlin
For the third edition of Real Scenes, RA and Bench go to one of the most special places for electronic music in the world: Berlin. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, techno became the underground soundtrack to the reunion between East and West. In recent years, it's become an international destination for ravers—a cheap place to party with clubs that are renowned throughout the world.
Techno has become a business in the meantime. Yet Berlin still maintains a credibility that other cities lack. To understand why, RA and Bench went to the German capital eager to find out about its unique history and the reasons behind its continued relevance.
Visit the feature page on RA: residentadvisor.net/feature.aspx?1405
George Orwell: War Is Peace
In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. . . .(1984)
This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, meritorious.
But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. . . .
To understand the nature of the present war -- for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war -- one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. . . . The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.
What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.
The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world. . . .
War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. . .
The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. . . .
In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.
♪♫ Los Lobos w/ Jerry Garcia - Born On The Bayou/Suzie-Q (New George's San Rafael, CA, May 26 1989)
Bonus: Bertha/Not Fade Away (2009)
Conservatives given millions by property developers
Developers are also paying thousands of pounds for access to senior Tories through the Conservative Property Forum, a club of elite donors which sets up “breakfast meetings” to discuss planning and property issues.
The disclosures are likely to provoke a new “cash-for-access” row and will give rise to fears that planning policies could have been influenced by powerful figures from the property industry.
The Coalition will also face a backlash next week from more than 80 rural MPs and peers, who will meet to discuss concerns that relaxing planning policy will see hundreds of wind turbines built in the countryside. The Daily Telegraph has launched the Hands Off Our Land campaign to urge ministers to rethink the measures, joining opposition from the National Trust, English Heritage and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The guidance states that there should be a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which campaigners have warned would give developers “carte blanche”.
Bill Cash, who is organising the meeting of back-bench MPs and peers, said last night: “This is a demonstration of the deep concern and the first shot across the bows.
“The developers will have the whip hand. When you are talking about economic benefit, the benefits of England’s green and pleasant land to tourism and the scenery is as important as anything else.”
The Conservative Planning Forum raises around £150,000 a year for the Tory party and charges members £2,500 to meet senior MPs to discuss policy and planning issues.
Mike Slade, its chairman, has given more than £300,000 over the past decade, individually and through his property firm, Helical Bar.
Mr Slade advocated reforms to encourage local authorities to “see the benefits of development” three years ago, when he warned the Tories to “get over” their image as “nimbys”.
The forum met Grant Shapps, who is now housing minister, while the Conservatives were in opposition early last year, after Mr Slade had written an article strongly critical of plans to devolve more planning powers to local authorities.
Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, will meet some of the nation’s biggest housebuilders at a conference next week where he will give the keynote speech.
His presence is likely to lead to further claims that ministers are “stacking the deck” in favour of developers.
Conservation groups have complained bitterly of a lack of access to ministers over the proposals and the National Trust has demanded a meeting with David Cameron. Some of the Tories’ biggest donors are from the property world. David and Simon Reuben, billionaires who own Millbank Tower in Westminster, have given almost £500,000 over the past decade, while Terence Cole, a London-based developer, donated almost £300,000. IM Properties, which is expanding Birch Coppice Business Park, near Tamworth, Staffs, has given around £1 million since 2009.
A senior Tory MP, who did not wish to be named, accused the Chancellor, George Osborne, of “shoe-horning in” the presumption in favour of development in a bid to stimulate the economy.
He said: “This is a clear example of localism being hijacked. Developers will have state licence to print money and we will see a proliferation of identikit suburbs springing up in the countryside.” The Conservative party last night strongly denied that planning policies had been influenced by donations from developers. A spokesman said: “These are Coalition policies based on principles laid out before the election by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. There is absolutely no link between donations to the Conservative party and Conservative planning policy – to suggest otherwise is untrue, misleading and unfair.”
He said that reforms would “maintain the protection of green space”.
A spokesman for the Reuben brothers said neither had talked with ministers about planning at any time, while Terence Cole said he had not met ministers or Tory MPs to discuss planning reform.
Mr Slade and IM Properties were unavailable for comment.
Heidi Blake @'The Telegraph'
What a surprise!!!
The Conservative Planning Forum raises around £150,000 a year for the Tory party and charges members £2,500 to meet senior MPs to discuss policy and planning issues.
Mike Slade, its chairman, has given more than £300,000 over the past decade, individually and through his property firm, Helical Bar.
Mr Slade advocated reforms to encourage local authorities to “see the benefits of development” three years ago, when he warned the Tories to “get over” their image as “nimbys”.
The forum met Grant Shapps, who is now housing minister, while the Conservatives were in opposition early last year, after Mr Slade had written an article strongly critical of plans to devolve more planning powers to local authorities.
Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, will meet some of the nation’s biggest housebuilders at a conference next week where he will give the keynote speech.
His presence is likely to lead to further claims that ministers are “stacking the deck” in favour of developers.
Conservation groups have complained bitterly of a lack of access to ministers over the proposals and the National Trust has demanded a meeting with David Cameron. Some of the Tories’ biggest donors are from the property world. David and Simon Reuben, billionaires who own Millbank Tower in Westminster, have given almost £500,000 over the past decade, while Terence Cole, a London-based developer, donated almost £300,000. IM Properties, which is expanding Birch Coppice Business Park, near Tamworth, Staffs, has given around £1 million since 2009.
A senior Tory MP, who did not wish to be named, accused the Chancellor, George Osborne, of “shoe-horning in” the presumption in favour of development in a bid to stimulate the economy.
He said: “This is a clear example of localism being hijacked. Developers will have state licence to print money and we will see a proliferation of identikit suburbs springing up in the countryside.” The Conservative party last night strongly denied that planning policies had been influenced by donations from developers. A spokesman said: “These are Coalition policies based on principles laid out before the election by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. There is absolutely no link between donations to the Conservative party and Conservative planning policy – to suggest otherwise is untrue, misleading and unfair.”
He said that reforms would “maintain the protection of green space”.
A spokesman for the Reuben brothers said neither had talked with ministers about planning at any time, while Terence Cole said he had not met ministers or Tory MPs to discuss planning reform.
Mr Slade and IM Properties were unavailable for comment.
Heidi Blake @'The Telegraph'
What a surprise!!!
No, technology is not going to destroy your privacy in the future
Welcome to Privacy Club. You cannot find Privacy Club on the internet.Look for stencils on the sidewalks to find this week's key to the encrypted directions — as usual, we've stashed them steganographically inside a photo posted in a 4Chan forum devoted to politicians having sex with donkeys.
You cannot bring your mobile to Privacy Club. While you are at Privacy Club, we ask you to find a reasonable thing for your phone to be doing so that it appears you have gone to a place other than this meeting. Leave it on your desk at work; send it out to lunch around the corner. You must walk to Privacy Club or take public transit. When you do, put on a hat and avoid heavy CCTV zones. If you normally wear makeup, don't. If you normally wear business clothes, dress like a punk. If you normally dress like a punk, put on a tie.
If anybody finds out who we are or that we've met, you've just killed this cell of Privacy Club. See you there...
Iggy Pop reveals he is writing new material with James Williamson
Iggy Pop has revealed that he has been working on new material with James Williamson, the guitarist in his band The Stooges.
The punk legend told Rolling Stone that he and Williamson had penned 10 tracks together at his house in Miami earlier this year and would continue to "keep writing" new songs, although he refused to confirm whether they would be released as a studio album.
Williamson, who assumed the mantle of lead guitarist for The Stooges on their classic 1973 LP 'Raw Power', returned to the line-up in 2009 to replace the band's founding guitarist Ron Asheton, who passed away in January of that year.
Pop – who had hinted last year that he was contemplating working and recording on new material with Williamson – confirmed that writing sessions had already taken place, but suggested that he would prefer to "make the score for an intelligent video game" rather than release a traditional LP.
He said:
The punk legend told Rolling Stone that he and Williamson had penned 10 tracks together at his house in Miami earlier this year and would continue to "keep writing" new songs, although he refused to confirm whether they would be released as a studio album.
Williamson, who assumed the mantle of lead guitarist for The Stooges on their classic 1973 LP 'Raw Power', returned to the line-up in 2009 to replace the band's founding guitarist Ron Asheton, who passed away in January of that year.
Pop – who had hinted last year that he was contemplating working and recording on new material with Williamson – confirmed that writing sessions had already taken place, but suggested that he would prefer to "make the score for an intelligent video game" rather than release a traditional LP.
He said:
We started trading stuff by MP3 back and forth as soon as we started. We actually did get together this spring. He came to my house in Miami and we wrote 10 things. I think we like about half of them. We'll keep writing. I think he'd like to make an album and I'd like to make more the score for an intelligent video game. So as far as what the former might be, I don't know.@'NME'
Saturday, 10 September 2011
Study: The More a Country Taxes the Rich, the Happier its People
Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett, pictured above, argued in a New York Times op-ed last month that the U.S. government doesn't tax him and his super-rich friends enough. "I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people," wrote Buffett. "Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering." On the opposite end of the spectrum from Buffett are the few but wildly vocal Tea Party supporters, who advocate a flat tax or the "fair tax," a plan that taxes a person's spending, not their income.
Science can't tell us which of those plans is "right," per se, but it can help point us in the best direction. And if science is to be believed, it turns out Buffett may be onto something. According to new research to be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, though progressive tax systems result in unequal tax burdens, they also tend to result in happier nations.
Using Gallup numbers from 2007, University of Virginia psychologist Shigehiro Oishi looked into the relationship between tax systems and quality-of-life polling in 54 nations. He discovered a direct correlation between a country's tax progressiveness and its happiness: On average, people taxed under the most progressive rates were more likely than anyone else to evaluate their lives as "the best possible." They also reported having more enjoyable daily experiences, and fewer negative ones.
Obviously people don't become happy because you tax them more. Rather, it appears that the public services provided by their taxes is what's really behind their joy. Writing about his study, Oishi noted that increased pleasure under the most progressive tax rates could be "explained by a greater degree of satisfaction with the public goods, such as housing, education, and public transportation."
In other words, taking the taxes people can afford to pay and applying them to the greater good results in everyone being happier. You've maybe known this since the "sharing is good" lesson from third grade. Now how to get through to those still calling for a fair tax?
Cord Jefferson @'GOOD'
Science can't tell us which of those plans is "right," per se, but it can help point us in the best direction. And if science is to be believed, it turns out Buffett may be onto something. According to new research to be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, though progressive tax systems result in unequal tax burdens, they also tend to result in happier nations.
Using Gallup numbers from 2007, University of Virginia psychologist Shigehiro Oishi looked into the relationship between tax systems and quality-of-life polling in 54 nations. He discovered a direct correlation between a country's tax progressiveness and its happiness: On average, people taxed under the most progressive rates were more likely than anyone else to evaluate their lives as "the best possible." They also reported having more enjoyable daily experiences, and fewer negative ones.
Obviously people don't become happy because you tax them more. Rather, it appears that the public services provided by their taxes is what's really behind their joy. Writing about his study, Oishi noted that increased pleasure under the most progressive tax rates could be "explained by a greater degree of satisfaction with the public goods, such as housing, education, and public transportation."
In other words, taking the taxes people can afford to pay and applying them to the greater good results in everyone being happier. You've maybe known this since the "sharing is good" lesson from third grade. Now how to get through to those still calling for a fair tax?
Cord Jefferson @'GOOD'
September 11 Lessons: Combating Ignorance, Avoiding Arrogance
Ten years ago, we were right, but it didn't matter.
Ten years ago, within hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, it was clear that the architects of US foreign policy were going to use the events to justify war in Central Asia and the Middle East. And within hours, those of us critical of those policies began to articulate principled and practical arguments against the mad rush to war.
We were right then, but it didn't matter. Neither the general public nor policymakers were interested in principled or practical arguments.
The public wanted revenge, and the policymakers seized an opportunity to attempt to expand US power.
We were right, but the wars came.
The destructive capacity of the US military meant quick ''victory'' that just as quickly proved illusory. As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq dragged on, each year it became clearer that the position staked out by the early opponents of the wars was correct. That mad rush to war had not only been illegal and immoral, but it was a failure on whatever pragmatic criteria one might use. The US military has killed some of the people who were targeting the United States and destroyed some of their infrastructure and organization, but we are neither stronger nor safer as a result. The ability to dominate militarily proved to be both inadequate and transitory, as critics predicted.
On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, it is tempting to want to linger on the part about ''being right,'' but it's more important to focus on why ''it didn't matter'' because we are still right, and it still doesn't matter. Understanding this is necessary to shape a realistic political program for the next decade - as bad as the past ten years have been, the next ten are likely to be worse, and we need to speak bluntly about these political/economic/social realities in the United States.
What We Did, and Didn't, Accomplish
When I say ''we were right,'' I count in the ''we'' those people who can be described as ''anti-empire,'' rather than just ''anti-war.'' This is how I described that position in an interview:
The broad outlines of US foreign policy since WWII have remained unchanged: A desire to deepen and extend US power around the world, especially in the most strategically crucial regions such as the energy-rich Middle East; always with an eye on derailing the attempts of any Third World society to pursue a course of independent development outside the US sphere; and containing the possibility of challenges to US hegemony from other powerful states. The Bush administration policy is a departure from recent policy in terms of strategy and tactics, and perhaps also in the intensity of ideological fanaticism.... None of this is unprecedented; all of it is dangerous and disturbing.
The folks at the core of the resistance to the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq mostly shared that critique, seeing both the continuities and the distinctive threat of the moment. Others spoke out and organized, but offered no framework for understanding the invasions - liberal Democrats who prefer less brutal methods of empire maintenance or simply reject wars started by Republican presidents; isolationists, including some Republicans, who think that reducing military adventures will preserve US affluence; and folks who identify as pacifist and reject any war.
Although the anti-empire analysis has continued to be the most compelling explanation of US policy and its effects, anti-empire movements remain small. The movements that have seen some growth in recent years - the Tea Party and right-wing libertarianism - include some anti-war elements, but repudiate a left critique, of empire or anything else...
Continue reading
Robert Jensen @'truthout'
Andy Worthington: Ten Years After 9/11, America Deserves Better than Dick Cheney’s Self-Serving Autobiography
On August 30, when In My Time, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s self-serving autobiography was published, the timing was pernicious. Cheney knows by now that every time he opens his mouth to endorse torture or to defend Guantánamo, the networks welcome him, and newspapers lavish column inches on his opinions, even though astute editors and programmers must realize that, far from being an innocuous elder statesman defending the “war on terror” as a robust response to the 9/11 attacks, Cheney has an ulterior motive: to keep at bay those who are aware that he and other Bush administration officials were responsible for authorizing the use of torture by US forces, and that torture is a crime in the United States.
As a result, Cheney knew that, on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that launched the “war on terror” that he is still so concerned to defend, his voice would be echoing in the ears of millions of his countrymen and women, helping to disguise a bitter truth: that, following the 9/11 attacks, Cheney was largely responsible for the abomination that is Guantánamo, and for the torture to which prisoners were subjected from Abu Ghraib to Bagram to Guantánamo and the “black sites” that littered the world.
Alarmingly, while Cheney has been largely successful in claiming that the use of torture was helpful, despite a lack of evidence that this was the case, what strikes me as even more alarming is that many Americans are still unaware of the extent to which the torture for which Cheney was such a cheerleader did not keep them safe from terrorist attacks, but actually provided a lie that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
As a long time believer in unfettered executive power, Cheney’s fingerprints are all over the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks, along with those of his legal counsel, David Addington. The two men had met while defending Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal, on the basis that the President should be beyond criticism, and it was Cheney and Addington who were behind a military order issued by George W. Bush on November 13, 2001, which established the President’s right to hold those he regarded as terrorists as a new type of prisoner (who later became the infamous “enemy combatants”), and, if he wished, to prosecute them in trials by military commission, which were designed to secure easy convictions and to use evidence derived through the use of torture.
It was Addington, no doubt after consultation with Cheney, who wrote the memo to President Bush on January 25, 2002, signed by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, which claimed that the Geneva Conventions contained “quaint” provisions, and that the circumstances in which the “war on terror” was being waged rendered “obsolete” the Conventions’ “strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.” The memo advised the President to discard the Geneva Conventions for the prisoners at Guantánamo, which had opened two weeks earlier...
As a result, Cheney knew that, on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that launched the “war on terror” that he is still so concerned to defend, his voice would be echoing in the ears of millions of his countrymen and women, helping to disguise a bitter truth: that, following the 9/11 attacks, Cheney was largely responsible for the abomination that is Guantánamo, and for the torture to which prisoners were subjected from Abu Ghraib to Bagram to Guantánamo and the “black sites” that littered the world.
Alarmingly, while Cheney has been largely successful in claiming that the use of torture was helpful, despite a lack of evidence that this was the case, what strikes me as even more alarming is that many Americans are still unaware of the extent to which the torture for which Cheney was such a cheerleader did not keep them safe from terrorist attacks, but actually provided a lie that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
As a long time believer in unfettered executive power, Cheney’s fingerprints are all over the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks, along with those of his legal counsel, David Addington. The two men had met while defending Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal, on the basis that the President should be beyond criticism, and it was Cheney and Addington who were behind a military order issued by George W. Bush on November 13, 2001, which established the President’s right to hold those he regarded as terrorists as a new type of prisoner (who later became the infamous “enemy combatants”), and, if he wished, to prosecute them in trials by military commission, which were designed to secure easy convictions and to use evidence derived through the use of torture.
It was Addington, no doubt after consultation with Cheney, who wrote the memo to President Bush on January 25, 2002, signed by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, which claimed that the Geneva Conventions contained “quaint” provisions, and that the circumstances in which the “war on terror” was being waged rendered “obsolete” the Conventions’ “strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.” The memo advised the President to discard the Geneva Conventions for the prisoners at Guantánamo, which had opened two weeks earlier...
Continue reading
Swept up and away
Previously released cables also featured unvarnished opinions. But the new lot include the names of people who talked to American officials. In countries like China that could bring nasty consequences. Even the most ardent advocates of open government would not defend the publication (also in the cables) of the private phone numbers of foreign leaders, such as the Queen of the Netherlands (a note adds that she speaks English well). WikiLeaks had earlier worked with media allies who edited out such sensitive details, though relations have now soured.
The cause of the fiasco is that WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, let multiple copies of a master file containing all the cables proliferate online, all encrypted with the same password (actually a phrase) that he had given David Leigh, a Guardian journalist. Mr Leigh later published the passphrase in a book (he says he thought it was no longer valid). People—perhaps including estranged former supporters of Mr Assange’s—started dropping hints until the secret was out. WikiLeaks has now joined other sites in publishing the cables in full.
Mr Assange’s file management looks sloppy, but Mr Leigh’s blunder seems bigger: since digital data is easily copied, safeguarding passwords is more important than secreting files. James Ball, an ex-ally now also at the Guardian, says Mr Assange intended to publish the bulk of the cables, unexpurgated, anyway, once he had released the juiciest ones to the media.
Either way, the damage is done. Diplomats may now be cagier about what they put in cables, but their work has not ground to a halt. The leaks show “we have not been lied to,” says a foreign diplomat. The lines American officials maintained to their allies turn out to be largely what they also told their bosses, she says. Carne Ross, a former British envoy who now runs Independent Diplomat, a consultancy, says that the risk of leaks may encourage more official integrity. A senior European politician dismisses that as “bullshit”.
The only consolation to harried diplomats and their fearful interlocutors is that another leak on this scale seems unlikely. America has tightened the rules that once gave some 2.5m people—including the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning, an army private—access to everything classified “secret” and below. Most other rich-world governments were already more careful than America was; they are even more so now.
But digital records are inherently vulnerable. WikiLeaks is just one prominent example of the assault on government security. An operation dubbed GhostNet, apparently originating in China, pilfered information from over 100 countries. Any of it could end up leaked.
WikiLeaks itself seems in trouble. Daniel Domscheit-Berg, once a leading member, has left to set up his own outfit, OpenLeaks. His absence temporarily crippled the ability of WikiLeaks to accept new submissions. It has had trouble fund-raising (you can buy Ku Klux Klan garb with major credit cards, but for months issuers barred donations to WikiLeaks). Mr Assange, dogged by leaks about misrule and mayhem, is fighting extradition from Britain to Sweden on sex-assault charges; a judgment is due next month. Though WikiLeaks made a big splash, wider changes in online publishing now matter more.
His legacy, however, will remain. WikiLeaks was not the first site to create an electronic dead-letter drop, but it was the first to try to combine it with a legal structure as impervious as its technical one, by basing its servers in countries with strong privacy laws. Copycat sites have sprung up, though SafeHouse, a submissions page at the Wall Street Journal, drew derision for its plentiful caveats and get-out clauses.
Still, that approach may be more honest. Replicating WikiLeaks, it seems, is hard. OpenLeaks is trying, and unlike WikiLeaks it plans to let leakers decide who gets their material; but nearly a year after Mr Domscheit-Berg started, it still isn’t accepting submissions. And he too is making enemies. A German hackers’ outfit, the Chaos Computer Club, has expelled him, ostensibly for asking its members to test his system. In fact, say German media reports, the hackers felt he had mishandled relations with Mr Assange.
John Young of Cryptome, the oldest and best established whistle-blowers’ site, says that the fundamental mistake made by WikiLeaks was to promise an impossible level of security. (Cryptome explicitly says it “never claims trustworthiness, authenticity or security…Expect to be deceived.”) Everyone will learn from Mr Assange’s failures. People will have more ways to leak secrets, and will think harder about whom to entrust them to—especially media outfits that claim to be tech-savvy and trustworthy. Governments and companies will be warier about what they put online. That is an indelible record.
@'The Economist'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
