Response to Wikileak's "Enough HARMON. You are alienating everyone." -- The Catbird's Forum

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:43:12 04/02/08 Wed
Author: Bobby N. Harmon
Subject:

Response to Wikileak's "Enough HARMON. You are alienating everyone."
In reply to: Bobby N. Harmon 's message, "Enough HARMON. You are alienating everyone." on 23:18:57 04/02/08 Wed

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:59:45 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Bobby Harmon"

Subject: Re: Enough HARMON. You are alienating everyone.

To: "Wikileaks"

Dear Wikileaks:

I am extremely puzzled by your e-mail. Not angry. Just puzzled. Perhaps you can help me better understand your displeasure and concern regarding my e-mails in order that I can take appropriate action.

You start your message by saying, "Jesus". Not that it may matter to you, but I consider this to be taking the Lord's name in vain, which I was taught as a child that I should not do.

Next, you say, "Give it a rest." If you have looked into my correspondence over the past eight years, you will see that that is what I've been trying to do all along -- settle this matter out-of-court so that my family and I, and everyone else involved, can get on with the rest of our lives. But, so far, the U.S. Department of Justice apparently is not interested in trying to settle the case - only in preventing me from exposing their corrupt and evil schemes. So, perhaps you should write to the U.S. Attorney General and ask him to "Give it a rest."

Then you say, "You must have alienated half the media industry now with these constant spams." I think you give me too much credit. How I wish I could alienate even 1% of the media industry...but I'll keep trying to reach that goal of half. Also, could you enlighten me as to which half you believe I've alienated -- the far left, the far right, the middle? And, why should I, or you, be concerned about alienating the media industry? Don't they believe in Freedom of Speech? Or, do they believe freedom of the press only applies to the media moguls and the main-stream press?

You call my e-mails "spams". And that is what puzzles me the most. On your website you say:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.

Wikileaks opens leaked documents up to stronger scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency can provide. Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to relentlessly examine any document for its credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity.

Communities can interpret leaked documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document comes from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community and diaspora can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document arrives from Iran, the entire Farsi community can analyze it and put it in context. Sample analyses are available here.

In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government. That is why the time has come for an anonymous global avenue for disseminating documents the public should see.

Volunteer to help. Almost everyone can be of some assistance.

What is Wikileaks? How does Wikileaks operate?

Wikileaks is an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. It combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the transparency and simplicity of a wiki interface.

Wikileaks looks like Wikipedia. Anybody can post comments to it. No technical knowledge is required. Whistleblowers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss the latest material, read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their veracity can be revealed by a cast of thousands.

Wikileaks incorporates advanced cryptographic technologies to ensure anonymity and untraceability. Those who provide leaked information may face severe risks, whether of political repercussions, legal sanctions or physical violence. Accordingly, sophisticated cryptographic and postal techniques are used to minimize the risks that anonymous sources face.

For the technically minded, Wikileaks integrates technologies including modified versions of MediaWiki, OpenSSL, FreeNet, Tor, PGP and software of our own design.

Wikileaks information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations and individuals.

Once a document is leaked it is essentially impossible to censor.

Why "wikify" leaking?

See also Why is Wikileaks so important?

Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.

Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the population about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practiced by their government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon papers shocks the world, exposes the government, and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of lives.

The power of principled leaking to embarrass governments, corporations and institutions is amply demonstrated through recent history. The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption.

Open governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance.

Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever.

Wikileaks is a tool to satisfy that need.

Wikileaks reduces the risks of truth tellers and improves the analysis and dissemination of leaked documents.

Wikileaks provides simple and straightforward means for anonymous and untraceable leaking of documents.

At the same time, Wikileaks opens leaked documents up to a much more exacting scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency could provide: the scrutiny of a worldwide community of informed wiki editors.

In place of a couple of academic specialists, Wikileaks provides a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity. The global community is able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document is leaked from Somalia, the entire Somali refugee community can analyze it and put it in context.

In an important sense, Wikileaks is the first intelligence agency of the people. Better principled and less parochial than any governmental intelligence agency, it is able to be more accurate and relevant. It has no commercial or national interests at heart; its only interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, Wikileaks relies upon the power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring feared and corrupt governments and corporations to justice.

Wikileaks will aid every government official, every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information that the institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, Wikileaks can broadcast to the world.

Wikileaks will be the forum for the ethical defection and exposure of unaccountable and abusive power to the people.

Who is behind Wikileaks?

Wikileaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.

Our public Advisory Board, which is still in formation, includes courageous journalists, representatives from refugee communities, ethics and anti-corruption campaigners, including a former national head of Transparency International, human rights campaigners, lawyers and cryptographers.

There are currently over 1,200 registered volunteers, but we need more people involved at an organizational level...

For more, see http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About

So you see, Mr Wikileaks, what puzzles me is that I completely AGREE with everything you say is the purpose of Wikileaks. In fact, I CHEERED when I found out about your site. Here, finally, I thought, was an organization that might be able to help me in my situation. An organization that I might be able to contribute to as a volunteer. I was already familiar with the admirable work being done by Transparency International and had contributed posts, early on, which included links to my censored and now shut-down (by the U.S. Department of Justice) website, "The Catbird Seat".

So, if I totally agree that we certainly need an organization such as yours where citizens can disclose documents which deserve to be seen by the public without disclosing their identities and risking losing their jobs, their home, their life savings, their marriages, even their lives, then why do you consider my information shared with you "SPAM"? Isn't this what you are asking your "volunteers" to do?

Finally, Mr. Wikileaks, you do not disclose YOUR identity in your e-mail. What is your name, your position in the organization? Are you speaking on behalf of the entire Wikileaks organization, or are these just your personal opinions? Please let me know as I feel a little silly calling you "Mr. Wikileaks".

Can I still volunteer to provide you documents? By digging through the public archives of the old Catbird Seat website, I can probably locate copies of many of the thousands of pages that I previously provided to U.S. Attorney Generals Janet Reno and Alberto Gonzales; the Hawaii Attorney General's office; the Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Estate Master, Colbert Matsumoto; the Hawaii and California Insurance Commissioners' Offices; the FBI; the IRS; the SEC; etc.

Or, you can dig them up yourself by going to http://www.kycbs.net and clicking on The Catbird Seat Archives button.

Until we meet again...ALOHA.

Bobby N. Harmon

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Enough HARMON. You are alienating everyone. -- Laser Steven Haas, 00:52:31 04/03/08 Thu