Wikileaks Internal E-Mail, Pt. 1

editor[a t]waynemadsenreport.com, funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.
net From: Julien Assange <me[a

g> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:07:48 -0600 To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> Subject: [WL] Re: Wikilea
s You [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do
tion that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net,
vist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] John, can you xxxx th
ce to "IQ.ORG" in that document near "my daughters photo".
7 January 2007
A writes:
Just read the majority of the mailing list conversation and did not understand your, what I thought, sudden shift in direction. I imagine something that did
not make its way onto the mailing list conversation prompted you to pull your support and then publish the emails? If so, can you fill us in?
Cryptome:
All the messages received were published. My objections had been building, shown in later messages, after initial support. The finally fed-up turnaround
occurred with the publication today of the $5 million dollar by July fund-raising goal -- see messages at the tail-end. I called that -- along with a delay in
offering a public discussion and critique forum and failure to provide a credible batch of leaked documents for public scrutiny -- a surefire indication of a
scam. This is the exact technique used by snake oilers, pols and spies. Requests to Cryptome to keep stuff quiet are regular fare and they always get
published. Next up, the names and affiliations of the perps if they don't reveal themselves in an open forum.
*** PGP Signature Status: unknown *** Signer: xxxxxxxxxxxxx *** Signed:
10/3/2006 8:16:00 PM *** Verified: 10/4/2006 8:32:09 AM *** BEGIN PGP
DECRYPTED/VERIFIED MESSAGE *** Dear John, You knew me under another
name from cypherpunk days. I am involved in a project that you may have
feeling for. I will not mention its name yet incase you feel yu are not
able to be involved. The project is a mass document leaking project
that requires someone with backbone to hold the .org domain
registration. We would like that person to be someone who is not privy
to the location of the master servers which are otherwise obscured by
technical means. We expect the domain to come under the usual
political and legal pressure. The policy for .org requires that
registrants details not be false or misleading. It would be an easy
play to cancel the domain unless someone were willing to stand up and
claim to be the registrant. This person does not need to claim any
other knowledge or involvement. Will you be that person?
anon1984@fastmail.to -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- [Deleted by
Cryptome] -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *** END PGP
DECRYPTED/VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
John Young agreed to do so by encrypted message, undecryptable by JY.
[A decrypted PGP message.] Dear J, The difficulties that confront a

conspirator are infinite. many have been the conspiracies, but few
have been successful; because he who conspires can not act alone, nor
can he take a companion except from those whom he believes malcontent,
and as soon as you have opened your mind to a malcontent you have given
him the material with which to content himself. --Macchiavelli
wikileaks.org, wikileaks.cn, wikileaks.info done Domain
Name:WIKILEAKS.ORG (etc) Created On:04-Oct-2006 05:54:19 UTC Last
Updated On:04-Oct-2006 06:45:38 UTC Expiration Date:04-Oct-2007
05:54:19 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Dynadot, LLC (R1266-LROR)
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED Registrant ID:CP-10335 Registrant Name:John
Young c/o Dynadot Privacy Registrant Street1:PO Box 1072 Registrant
Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Belmont Registrant
State/Province:CA Registrant Postal Code:94002 Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.6505851961 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:privacy@dynadot.com The privacy
forwarding service is part of the dynadot.com rego. Many thanks. Far
from jya to be content :)
To: jya[a t]pipeline.com From: Subject: Welcome to list

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:48:40 -0800 (PST)
Welcome to list xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Your subscription email is
jya[a t]pipeline.com Your password : xxxxxxxxxxxxx This list is aimed
at increasing water flow through the Santa Lucía River river system.
Everything about this list: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Names and addresses, headers and redundant messages trimmed by

Cryptome.] To: Resent-Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:50:32 +1100 From:
[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-
a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these
discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net,
an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty
of backbone.] I think they're almost perfect and your efforts are
prob. better spent doing something new, rather than perfecting mr.
mole. I'm not sure how easy it is for you to modify. Are you doing
all this freehand? Comments from others: germans seem to love the
mole! I hadn't realized before and neither do they, but smashing
through walls with guard type figures above has special resonance for
them! not sure how that effect can be enhanced further, without
giving the game away, but it sure is interesting! Comments from an
american [I am not making this up!] Nice walrus! Err, ok, nice
seal. What's with the strange flippers? Otter? Oh, one of those
strange marsupials? platypus? [they eventually got it. how's that for
the american education system?] - mole comes from dark into light
but white around moles head? perhaps needs shading? - dudes above
look like they can see mr mole and might get him, but mr mole can't
see them? - are they coming down stairs to get mr mole? -
strongly prefer left hourclass wkileaks to hand form on right Comments
from me: - mr. mole's attitude is perfect - logos look great,
nothing to change. prefer hourglass artistically to hand, but white
hands cupping have historically found a lot of traction in
people's minds. possible confusion with global warming -
icecaps melting, but can't think of anything that can be done about
that other than leading with appropriate context, which should work.
it's not as if we're sending out random letters in the post.
- How about a "logo" sized mole with similar attitude? Be nice to get
his lovability onto every page header, for example - As a
"backing" organization we're forming something like "centre for open
democracy" or some such phrase of eminent and untouchable worth.
any suggestions on the phrase? we can re-use one of the logos
there, if mole-logo starts to dominate - 2d brickwork, 3d fallen
bricks. difficult problem. maybe just cut at the bottom of the wall,
since the image is pretty tall anyway? 2d wall, 3d mole is nice
stylistically - perhaps some spreading cracks (not too gratuitous)
in the brickwork to further suggest mr. moles impact on the
rotten foundations of state power? - perhaps top of moles head
should overlay brickwork for increased depth? not sure - moles
snout might look seal like, though never thought of this till comment
by americano. some real moles have amazing star noses. we can't
have our mr. mole have one of those, because it will de-
humanize him. But iff you can do it without dehumanizing him,
some variant, like a powerful glinting conical metal drill
nose might be cool - perhaps angle black dudes eyes up a bit? or
have them looking at each other? - be interesting to know how
"leaks" and "mole" translate to other languages - we probably need
fresh eyes now to see things objectively On 20.11.2006, at 18:08, Ani
Lovins wrote: > Howdie, cowgirl! > > I take it I am just waiting now
for any comments? > Yes, well as you said - both cute and with
attitude, the mole shall > be.
From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:28:09 +1100 To: [This is a

restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-
r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions;
refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist
collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of
backbone.] Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: Re: fresh
meat > > OK, so here are some further modifications: > > First of all I
changed the font on the 2 logos so whatever one you > decide to go
with, I think this is better. ( I am guessing you'll > decide amongst
yourselves what logo is appropriate) > > As to the mole: I disagree
about several things. > > The dark figures are now looking beyond/
above the mole but they > should NOT look at one another, as I want no
bonding or feeling of > togetherness about them. > Moles have noses
like little hearts (which makes them so cute), whilst > seals dont
really have a separate nose (it blends in with the skin). I > tried a
quick change with a drill but I don't like it. > Also added a version
with a darker mole bckground, but that takes away > from the picture,
and I think your eye is no longer drawn to the > center. > Anyway, I
will try to shrink the mole into some kind of logo sized > icon over
the next few days. Bit busy, cause of Christmas coming up > but shall
do my best. > > Hope this is acceptable. > > Battle on! > aï¿¼ï¿¼
Begin forwarded message: From: Subject: Re: fresh meat OK, so here
are some further modifications: First of all I changed the font on the
2 logos so whatever one you decide to go with, I think this is better.
( I am guessing you'll decide amongst yourselves what logo is
appropriate) As to the mole: I disagree about several things. The
dark figures are now looking beyond/ above the mole but they should NOT
look at one another, as I want no bonding or feeling of togetherness
about them. Moles have noses like little hearts (which makes them so
cute), whilst seals dont really have a separate nose (it blends in with
the skin). I tried a quick change with a drill but I don't like it.
Also added a version with a darker mole bckground, but that takes away
from the picture, and I think your eye is no longer drawn to the
center. Anyway, I will try to shrink the mole into some kind of logo
sized icon over the next few days. Bit busy, cause of Christmas coming
up but shall do my best. Hope this is acceptable. Battle on! a[][]
From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:28:09 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please
do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead
to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Begin
forwarded message: > From: > Subject: Re: fresh meat > > OK, so here
are some further modifications: > > First of all I changed the font on
the 2 logos so whatever one you > decide to go with, I think this is
better. ( I am guessing you'll > decide amongst yourselves what logo is
appropriate) > > As to the mole: I disagree about several things. > >
The dark figures are now looking beyond/ above the mole but they >
should NOT look at one another, as I want no bonding or feeling of >
togetherness about them. > Moles have noses like little hearts (which
makes them so cute), whilst > seals dont really have a separate nose
(it blends in with the skin). I > tried a quick change with a drill but
I don't like it. > Also added a version with a darker mole bckground,
but that takes away > from the picture, and I think your eye is no
longer drawn to the > center. > Anyway, I will try to shrink the mole
into some kind of logo sized > icon over the next few days. Bit busy,
cause of Christmas coming up > but shall do my best. > > Hope this is
acceptable. > > Battle on! > aï¿¼ Begin forwarded message: From:
Subject: Re: fresh meat OK, so here are some further modifications:
First of all I changed the font on the 2 logos so whatever one you
decide to go with, I think this is better. ( I am guessing you'll
decide amongst yourselves what logo is appropriate) As to the mole: I
disagree about several things. The dark figures are now looking
beyond/ above the mole but they should NOT look at one another, as I
want no bonding or feeling of togetherness about them. Moles have noses
like little hearts (which makes them so cute), whilst seals dont really
have a separate nose (it blends in with the skin). I tried a quick
change with a drill but I don't like it. Also added a version with a
darker mole bckground, but that takes away from the picture, and I
think your eye is no longer drawn to the center. Anyway, I will try to
shrink the mole into some kind of logo sized icon over the next few
days. Bit busy, cause of Christmas coming up but shall do my best.
Hope this is acceptable. Battle on! a[] Content-Id: Content-Type:
image/jpeg; x-unix-mode=0644; name=Logos new font.jpg Content-
Disposition: inline; filename="Logos new font.jpg"
To: From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:42:37 +1100 This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone. Dear Mr.
Ellsberg. We have followed with interest and delight your recent
statements on document leaking. We have come to the conclusion that
fomenting a world wide movement of mass leaking is the most cost
effective political intervention available to us* We believe that
injustice is answered by good governance and for there to be good
governance there must be open governance. Governance by stealth is
governance by conspiracy and fear. Fear, because without it, secrecy
does not last for long. Retired generals and diplomats are vociferous,
but those in active service hold their tune. Lord Action said,
"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice;
nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and
publicity". This degeneration comes about because when injustice is
concealed, including plans for future injustice, it cannot be
addressed. When governance is closed, man's eyes become cataracts. When
governance is open, man can see and so act to move the world towards a
more just state; for instance see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders which shows a
striking correlation between press freedom and countries known for
their quality of life. us*: some attributes may have been swapped to
protect selected identities, no particular order. 1) Retired
new york architect and notorious intelligence leak facilitator 2)
Euro cryptographer/programmer 3) Pacific physicist and illustrator
4) A pacific author and economic policy lecturer 5) Euro, Ex-
Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer 6) Euro businessman
and security specialist/activist 7) Author of software than runs 40%
of the world's websites. 8) US pure mathematician with criminal law
background 9) An infamous US ex-hacker 10) Pacific
cryptographer/physicist and activist 11) US/euro cryptographer and
activist/programmer 12) Pacific programmer 13) Pacific architect /
foreign policy wonk New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us
to not only encourage document leaking, but to facilitate it directly
on a mass scale. We intend to place a new star in the political
firmament of man. We are building an uncensorizable branch of
Wikipedia for leaked documents and the civic institutions & social
perceptions necessary to defend and promote it. We have received over 1
million documents from 13 countries, despite not having publicly
launched yet! We have approached you now for two reasons. Firstly, we
have crossed over from `prospective' to `projective'. The basic
technology has been prototyped and we have a view as how we must
proceed politically and legally. We need to move and inspire people,
gain volunteers, funding, further set up the necessary political-legal
defenses and deploy. Since you have thought about leaking more than
anyone we know, we would like you on board. We'd like your advice and
we'd like you to form part of our political armor. The more armor we
have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age,
history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get
away with it. Secondly, we would like to award "The Ellsburg Prize for
Courageous Action" and "The Ellsburg Prize for Courageous Action
(USA)", for the two leaks submitted in the past year which most assist
humanity. The regionalization of the second prize is to encourage
patrons of similar awards in other countries. Although it is premature
to go into detail, we have designed a scheme were this can be
meaningfully awarded to anonymous leakers. We have been pledged
substantial initial funding. Please tell us your thoughts. If you are
happy, we will add you to our internal mailinglist, contacts, etc.
Solidarity! WL.
To: From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:45:09 +1100 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I've
registered us to present WL at the World Social Forum in Nairobi Jan
20-25th 2007! There should be 40-70 thousand people attending. Anyone
else feel like coming to Africa? At the moment I've only registered us
to present on the first day. However, we *can* register upto 5
presentations/workshops/roundtables etc. I've reserved a slot for a
200-300 audience, but it's really quite hard to guess how many people
will turn up. There's 1000 other organizations jostling for time, but
there are 40-70k people. Many people there must be net savy and even
those that aren't can't but help hearing about the wikpedia. Does
anyone have suggestions on how to best stagger the presentation types
(you'll have examine wsfprocess.net to see what's available). At the
moment, my intent is to register a similar sized slot on each day, with
a slightly different label, so as to appeal to different character
types. The 7th edition of the World Social Forum brings the world to
Africa as activists, social movements, networks, coalitions and other
progressive forces from Asia-Pacific, Latin America, the Caribbean,
North America, Europe and all corners of the African continent converge
in Nairobi, Kenya for five days of cultural resistance and celebration.
http://www.wsfprocess.net/ You'll need to create an account (easy) at
wsfprocess in order to see us.
To: From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:05:06 -0500 (EST) [This is a
backbone.] Thanks for registering on Idealist! To complete the
registration process please click in the following link:
http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/MyIdealist/UserVerification/acti
vate?email=funtimesahead%40lists.riseup.nettoken=f8bbd3190dd90c4174cc2c
7d197d5219 Please remember that the verification link is valid for 7
days. If you have any questions about how to make the most of
Idealist, please visit our Help Section at
http://www.idealist.org/help Thanks, and all the best! The
Idealist.org Team www.idealist.org
From: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:01:30 +1100 To: [This is a

backbone.] I may donate XX.ORG [now worth $30k] for the WL civic
institution if someone can find a good acronym. Some good words:
Quorum, Question, Quest, Quadrant, Quality, Qualification, Quantum,
Quotient, Query, InQuiry... Quasimodo [ok, q's are hard] I... Q...
[french word order] I, International, Idea, Ideal, Identify,
Integrity, Illusion, Image, Imagination, Immortal, Immaterial,
Impartial, Interesting, Impassioned, Impending, Imperial, Impetuous,
Institute, Important, Impressive, Impunity, Incite, Inclusive,
Incorrigible, Incredible, Identical, Infamous, Infinite, Inform,
Ingenous, Initiating, Inner, Institute, Insight, Intelligent,
Intention, Inter-, InterQuadrant, InterQuarter, Intra-, Intro-,
Intri-, Intuitive, Invariant, Innocent, Invective, Investi-, Iconic,
Independent, Irony, Island, In- I like: Inter-Quadrant, Inter-
Quarter, International Quorum/Question, (center for public) inquiry,
Infinite Quest. If there's a great character from history who's name
begins with I, one can form something like: Isaac's
Question/Quest ("Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the
lamb?" (Genesis 22: 7)) Which is lovely, since the open mind yearns to
know what the question is as soon it hears the name, and a biblical
character may give christian sanctity (the answer to Isaaic is
deeply moving. But the source of the pathos is horror. If we were to
front as a Ploughshares style movement this might work). Isaiah has
many questions, of which 6:10 seems to be the most interesting:
Isaiah 6:10-11 "10 Make the heart of this people fat, and
make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they, seeing with
their eyes, and hearing with their ears, and understanding with their
heart, return, and be healed.'. Then said I: 'Lord, how long?' And He
answered: 'Until cities be waste without inhabitant, and houses
without man, and the land become utterly waste. Suggestions?
From: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:44:37 +1100 To: [This is a

backbone.] Dear How have you been? How's xxxxxx and xxxxxx? From
reading your blog, it seems like the course you are on is sustaining
you and people you care about. Other than to catching up, would you
like to join the initial advisory board of an organization that's
designing and deploying a censorship resistant version of wikipedia
(mediawiki) for mass document leaking? More about that later. I want
to give you time to think about what it may mean (technically and
politically) in the light of John Young's proven ability to withstand
censorship of some very important, but smaller scale leaks on Cryptome.
3 FBI meetings, but no raids. What it doesn't mean is lots of your
time. I think even your name would be a positive contribution. There's
a recent picture of me and my daughter(!) on xxxxxxxxxxx, although the
rest is mostly decontexualised. I see you've acquired an interest in
motorcycles. Me too. [I liked the following part of my letter to you
so much, I took the non personal bits and published them here
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- please excuse the style change!] It seems like
everyone I meet plans to follow the young Che Guavara, and take off on
their motorbike and adventure through the poverty and pleasurs of South
and Central American, now that seduction of random latinos has been
politically sanctified -- and who can blame them? Last year I rode my
motorcycle from Ho Chi Min City (Saigon) to Hanoi, up the highway that
borders the South China Sea. The road to Hanoi is a Vietnamese
economic artery but is nonetheless dominated by potholes, thousands the
size of bomb craters. There are constant reminders of "The American
War" all over Vietnam, and perhaps this was one of them, but in a more
indirect way. To a physicist a pothole has an interesting life. It
starts out as a few loose stones. As wheels pass over, these stones
grind together and against the under surface. Their edges are rounded
off and the depression they are in also becomes rounder by their
action. The stones become pestles to the hole's motor. Smaller stones
and grit move between the spaces of larger stones and add to the
grinding action. The hole enlarges, and deepens. Small stones are soon
entirely worn away, but in the process liberate increasingly larger
stones from the advancing edge of the hole. The increasing depth and
surface capture more and more energy from passing wheels. The
destruction of the road surface accelerates until the road is abandoned
or the hole is filled. Road decay is, like a dental decay, a run away
process. Utility rapidly diminishes and costs of repair accelerate, and
just like teeth it is more efficient to fill a pothole as soon as it
is noticed. But this measure of efficiency is not the metric of
politics and it is a political feedback process that lays behind the
filling in of potholes on almost every road on earth. That process is
driven by the behavior of politically influential road users who are
themselves motivated to action by psychologically negative encounters
with potholes. When potholes are small, the resultant political
pressures are not sufficient to overcome the forces of other interests
groups who compete for labour and resources. Likewise, it is difficult
to motivate people who have other passions and pains in their life to
go to the dentist when their teeth do not ache. Both are caused by
limitations in knowledge and its distillation: foresight. Why is this
surprising? It is surprising because we are used to looking at
government spending through the lens of economic utility; a lens which
claims the political process as a derivative. This vision claims that
political forces compete for access to the treasury to further their
own utility. Hence, military intelligence and public health compete
with road maintenance for funding and so should attempt to minimize the
latter's drain on the treasury. But that drain is minimized by filling
in potholes immediately! Foresight requires trustworthy information
about the current state of the world, cognitive ability to draw
predictive inferences and economic stability to give them a meaningful
home. It's not only in Vietnam where secrecy, malfeasance and unequal
access have eaten into the first requirement of foresight ("truth and
lots of it"). Foresight can produce outcomes that leave all major
interests groups better off. Likewise the lack of it, or doing the dumb
thing, can harm almost everyone. Computer scientists have long had a
great phrase for the dependency of foresight on trustworthy
information; "garbage in, garbage out". In intelligence agency
oversight we have "The Black Budget blues", but the phrase is probably
most familiar to us as "The Fox News Effect". of the world, cognitive
ability to draw predictive inferences and economic stability to give
them a meaningful home. It's not only in Vietnam where secrecy,
malfeasance and unequal access have eaten into the first requirement of
foresight ("truth and lots of it"). Foresight can produce outcomes
that leave all major interests groups better off. Likewise the lack of
it, or doing the dumb thing, can harm almost everyone. Computer
scientists have long had a great phrase for the dependency of foresight
on trustworthy information; "garbage in, garbage out". In intelligence
agency oversight we have "The Black Budget blues", but the phrase is
probably most familiar to us as "The Fox News Effect". But back in the
west and a land of cars, I noted that I knew only 10 people who had
died; two murders, one suicide and six dead or severely brain damaged
in motorcycle accidents. None from old age, which reflects my clans'
longevity and wanderlust on one hand and fractiousness on the other. I
stopped riding in the land of cars. Cheers,

backbone.] xxxxxxx says yes! I wonder if that letter to Ellsberg
has been routed to somewhere other than the spam bucket. Can someone
step forward to chase down his postal address? Perhaps one of our bay
area people? Any other suggestions? xxxxxx noted that Psyphon [poorly
chosen name!], a sort of poor mans tor/i2p lulled Soros and a bunch
of others into giving them US$3,000,000 for development. As some of
you may know we were recently leaked the entire Davos (World Economic
Forum) attendees contacts list, which has Soros, Sergi-Brin, any many
others on it. Presumably one of the reasons Psyphon was able to get
these $ was its affilication with some Canadian uni -- makes donors
feel safe. We have some people with affiliations, but that's not
quite the same thing.
From: To: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:17:33 -0600 [This is a

backbone.] A simple googlestalking operation reveals his address to
be: 90 Norwood Avenue Kensington CA 94707 USA

backbone.] WL cryptographic certificate. Valid for two years. Note
that this is for the top level domain only. Wild card certificats
(*.wl.org) necessary to handle language groups as per wikipedia.org e.g
en.wikipedia.org, de.wikepedia.org etc are quite expensive. Since we
haven't even started on language regionalization yet, we'll leave that
to later. CECERT will issue these certs for free, but it's not
recognised in browsers yet. cecert certs will *probably* find their way
into browsers in the next six months. John Young's address in NY given
as the rego address. Hope you're still feeling brave, John :) -----
BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- [Deleted by Cryptome.] -- WikiLeaks.Org
anon1984[a t]fastmail.to -- http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is
it about a decent email service?

backbone.] Hi xxxxxx, We haven't publically launched yet. WL has
developed and integrated technology to foment untracable, unstoppable
mass document leaking and discussion. Our primary targets are those
highly oppressive regimes in china, russia and central eurasia, but we
also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal
illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.
We aim for maximum political impact; this means our technology is fast
and usable by non-technical people. We have received over a million
documents of varying quality. We plan to numerically eclipse the
content the english wikipedia with leaked documents. We believe that
the increasing familiarity with wikipedia.org provides a comfortable
transition to those who wish to leak documents and comment on leaked
documents. We feel that per hour spent this provides the greatest
positive impact on the world and ourselves that is within our means to
achieve. [...] PS. We can always use additional assistance, any
ideas, let us know. We are also looking for stable and trustworthy
document drop-offs in different countries. There are two types of
drop-offs: 1) deniable 2) regular A deniable drop off will
receive a leaked CD/DVD/thumbdrive with encrypted information to which
they do not have the key. Their job is to simply upload this to WL.
Since at no time do they have access to the information they can not
later be held to be knowingly concerned with its contents. A regular
drop off is willing to receive and upload both deniable media, regular
digital media and printed documents. In the case of printed documents,
they are expected to scan/ocr the documents or if there prove to be too
many, forward some on to a regular drop off. Is riseup interested in
being the location of one of the US drop-offs? We have one in NY, one
in CA. Seattle and washington would probably make a full US complement.
-- WikiLeaks.Org anon1984[a t]fastmail.to --
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different…
To: From: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:27:40 +1100 [This is a

backbone.] idealist.org is a volunteering intermediary. quite good --
does anyone feel like combing them for assistants? Thank you for
getting back to me. Your application has been approved and is now
active. You may access it by logging in at http://www.idealist.org.
Email: Password: On your Control Panel, you will see a link to your
organization, Instructions on managing your account may be found at
http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/FAQ/QuestionViewer/default?categ
ory-eid=208-271&eid=655-219. If you wish to provide access to this
account, either fully or partially, to other staff in your
organization, please follow the instructions at
http://www.idealist.org/if/idealist/en/FAQ/QuestionViewer/default?categ
ory-eid=210-74&eid=656-252 Best, Chelsea Idealist User Support Staff
Action Without Borders http://www.idealist.org
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:34:26 -0500 To: From: Michael Ellsberg
<ellsbergpress[a t]gmail.com> [This is a restricted internal
development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not
mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle
with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Subscription
Confirmation Before we add you to our mailing list, we would like to
confirm your subscription. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your subscription
will be activated immediately upon clicking the above link. This
double opt-in method ensures that all subscribers on our list do
indeed want to receive our newsletters and that no one can add your
email address to a list without your consent. Thank you for your
assistance! This message was sent from Michael Ellsberg to
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It was sent from: Michael Ellsberg, 90 Norwood Ave.,
Kensington, CA 94707. You can modify/update your subscription via the
link below.

backbone.] xxxxxxxx, I notice ellsberg also uses ellsbergd[a
t]cs.com [compuserve]

backbone.] xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx [Telephone number deleted by
Cryptome.]

backbone.] xxxxxx/xxx 'uncensorizable' should probably be
'uncensorable'.

backbone.] I've sent a version of xxxxxxxxxx's Ellsberg letter to
John Gilmore. Begin forwarded message: > From: > Date: 16 December
2006 19:00:14 GMT+11:00 > To: gnu[a t]eff.org, gnu[a t]toad.com >
Subject: document leaking > > Dear J, > > Are you interested in helping
us build/support/get support for > this: www.wikileaks.org > > We
have come to the conclusion that fomenting a world wide movement of >
mass leaking is the most cost effective political intervention >
available to us*. We believe that injustice is answered by good >
governance and for there to be good governance there must be open >
governance. Governance by stealth is governance by conspiracy and >
fear. Fear, because without it, secrecy does not last for long. >
Retired generals and diplomats are vociferous, but those in active >
service hold their tune. > > Lord Action said, "Everything secret
degenerates, even the > administration of justice; nothing is safe that
does not show how it > can bear discussion and publicity". > > This
degeneration comes about because when injustice is concealed, >
including plans for future injustice, it cannot be addressed. When >
governance is closed, man's eyes become cataracts. When governance is >
open, man can see and so act to move the world towards a more just >
state; for instance see >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders which shows a >
striking correlation between press freedom and countries known for >
their quality of life. > > us*: some attributes may have been swapped
to protect selected > identities, > no particular order. > > 1)
Retired new york architect and notorious intelligence leak >
facilitator > 2) Euro cryptographer/programmer > 3) Pacific physicist
and illustrator > 4) A pacific author and economic policy lecturer > 5)
Euro, Ex-Cambridge mathematician/cryptographer/programmer > 6) Euro
businessman and security specialist/activist > 7) Author of software
than runs 40% of the world's websites. > 8) US pure mathematician with
criminal law background > 9) An infamous US ex-hacker > 10) Pacific
cryptographer/physicist and activist > 11) US/euro cryptographer and
activist/programmer > 12) Pacific programmer > 13) Pacific architect /
foreign policy wonk > > New technology and cryptographic ideas permit
us to not only encourage > document leaking, but to facilitate it
directly on a mass scale. We > intend to place a new star in the
political firmament of man. > > We are building an uncensorable branch
of Wikipedia for leaked > documents and the civic institutions & social
perceptions necessary to > defend and promote it. We have received over
1 million documents from > 13 countries, despite not having publicly
launched yet! > > We have approached you now for two reasons. > >
Firstly, we have crossed over from `prospective' to `projective'. The >
basic technology has been prototyped and we have a view as how we must
> proceed politically and legally. We need to move and inspire people,
> gain volunteers, funding, further set up the necessary political-
legal > defenses and deploy. Since you have created more successful >
technical-political > projects than anyone else we know of in the US,
we would like you > on board. We'd like > your advice and we'd like
you to form part of our political armor. > The more armor we > have,
particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age, > history
and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get > away
with it. > > We state here our clear, bold goal. We will provide a
catalyst > which will > bring down government through stealth
everywhere, not least that of > the Bushists. > > What do you say? >
From: To: Date: [This is a restricted internal development

mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that
word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is
housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an
established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Just ran into this guy at
bar camp. http://www.rumor-mill.org/ dzetland[a t]gmail.com --
xxxxxxxx
From: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:21:22 +1100 To: [This is a

backbone.] Well, other than the V theme, what's the low down
xxxxxxxxx? ppt is causing me grief. On 18.12.2006, at 08:02, xxxxxxxxx
wrote: http://www.rumor-mill.org

backbone.] This is great. I hang my head in shame for ever thinking
you were not going to write it. I have to go out, but I wanted to
give you my (literally!) 5 minute take so you have something to work
with. I have only skimmed the document. The time of year has some
implications for political publishing i.e it has to be quite soon or
we need to wait till, say 3rd of jan when there's a trade off between
types of activity [long articles may be better received in the
holidays once social events are over]. As usual with most people who
write, the evenness of your tone and style, and consequent
readability improves as the document goes along. but the first few
paragraphs are the most important because people won't read the rest
unless they get hooked by them. so that's what I'll comment on. Keep
in mind that my comments may be irrelevant since I have only read a
small part. 1. remove most obscure acronyms from the first few
paragraphs and try to reduce them using grammar in the subsequent
few. maths people are good at holding definitions, others not so, but
for both types linear reading is required; this can't be assumed on
the internet. I *know* you don't want to use 'government' since it
grants a right to authority which frequently does not exist. 2.
place some questions and violent acts into the readers mind quickly
so that they want to resolve them. Leak reads like a script for what
happened -- good plan or good post-facto forgery? Some readers are
interested in that country. but many in China. Why was it being
passed off to C in Oct (broaden political relevance, add chrono
relevance)? Arms? C oil company (many interested in oil)? six killed
in Sept assassination attempt on pres -- any connection? (make
violence / chrono relevant). Forged? It seems likely that this
document is legitimate, but we don't have to tell the reader that
straight away, and notice that the 3rd jpg has been edited. If
forged, why, and why pass it off now (Oct)? Probably worth putting in
a call to what remains of the somali govt and asking where they got
it [do they claim leaked, or seized in military operation?]. Do we
not want to reveal that the S government has it? I think to be true
to the truth we have to. So why haven't they told the world? Have
they? Why hasn't the world followed up? Did no one have time to
understand it/somalia (quite possible)? Or did no one trust that it
wasn't faked? Faking it seems a bit long temr and esoteric for the
somalis govt, who fighting for their immediate survival, but assume
it is a fake, then who's the master? CIA? But that's it's influence
on the US seems to be where it would be the most useful. But not now.
A year ago; so why is it being passed off now? Who's "Captain WELI",
the translator? We assume someone in the somali military, not loyal
to UIT.

backbone.] just noticed the amazing events that are happening on the
ground. is that hitting the news wires? -- if so we must act quickly.
most importantly we must verify the integrity of that translation.
first quote I've found was $300 for 1,000 words. cruising some irc
channels that operate in that language may suffice. anyone have
somali friends? in particular we can't make claims about words like
'criminal' without knowing the translation has integrity. i *assume*
it has general integrity since that' s something that's easy to
check, but there's always give for word bias in translation other
notes: emotive language (including amplifiers, like 'massive') that
maybe justified, but not justified immediately preceeding text should
go. The strongest position is say "murderous" when the facts provide
carte blanche and otherwise keep quiet. 'we' should be 'I', unless
you're referring to yourself and the reader 'we can see that'. Even
then it's better style to avoid those constructs (seductively easy
way of roping the reader into your argument, I know). give colorful
bio of the author early -- easy to do, if you've looked at his wiki
page -- there he is, flame on his chin, holy book in his hand and
anti-aircraft cannon between his legs. this story is more powerful in
a publishing venue which takes photos. those scanned jpgs, together
with recent news and a photo of the author are a powerful
combination!

backbone.] Something worth noting about the unusual relative power
of community building islamist movements when operating against well
funded US led democracy wagons; the promise of better shopping does
not move the heart to great acts of love or sacrifice. "Democracy" is
a difficult abstraction that is easily abused (try drawing it). It is
a means, not an end. There's no instinct or desire for democracy.
Consider the US Declaration of Independence (1776), a document which
is the distillation of psychological forces that drove men to civil
war and kept them there. What are those forces? ...God.. Creator..
Men are created equal... Life, Liberty,... pursuit of Happiness..
Safety and Happiness... [followed by 26(!) paragraphs of hatred for
the abuses of King George]. In other words, religious feeling (x2),
equality, life, liberty, happiness (x2), safety and above all, an
extreme hatred for the brutal acts, preferment, and corruption of
foreign influenced or controlled government. Not once does
"democracy" or "shopping" appear. Doesn't bode well for the Iraqi
provisional authority -- at least the British spoke the same
language.

backbone.] http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/6/2/1/n1208580.htm

backbone.] [xxxxxxxxxxx has an message size limit of 300k, my earlier
post didn't go through, so I've split it up into three parts] Given
the recent dramatic turn of events in somalia, we have decided to
rush forward with the first ``Bourbaki'' article based on a Somali
diplomatic government leak (seized document?) handed over to the
chinese in mid October (and then submitted to us). Nobody, amazingly
writing it in under a day. [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/som.zip

backbone.] Hi all, Can everyone on this list who has functional
access to PGP [ i.e will not cause days of delay to encrypt/decrypt a
message] please send their public keys to this list? I'd like to
keep our discussions on the path of least resistance and this this
generally means, open and transparent, but there some matters we need
to address soon where openness is better enabled through secrecy; we
owe our sources, even through we keep no logs or other information
that might identify them, to exercise mindful diligence (not
paranoia) in response to their courage. We're on an exponential; we
have no forces working against us yet, but there will many in a few
months and these early discussions may take on an unexpected
poignancy. xxxxxxxxxxxx.
From: To: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:42:22 +1100 Subject: [WL] somali
bourbaki article [.doc] [This is a restricted internal development
established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] [xxxxxxxxxxx has an
message size limit of 300k, my earlier post didn't go through, so
I've split it up into three parts] []
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia.doc
To: From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:43:01 +1100 [This is a

backbone.] [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia.pdf
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:26:14 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal development mailinglist
for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly
in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at
riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] It would be prudent to attempt to
verify that the Somali document is not a forgery. The last threat about
shooting anybody who reveals the document smells like a smear of the
author. The spooks forge such documents as a matter of regular
tradecraft, and leaks of them are frequently through an alleged third
party. The more the reputation of a target would be damaged by a
"leak," greater the likelihood of a forgery. Verification, or the
best that can done close to it, is probably a basic requirement of this
list. Or a disclaimer that no verification has been done. It should
not be long before deliberate leaks start to appear here, as they do
around nearly all means of distributing information. Contaminating
these means is the nature of those who prowl for ways to insert lies
and duplicity into the search for truth and reliability. This is not
to suggest leaks are not to be trusted, just not blindly so, for they
are now standard tools for lying, smearing and stinging by
governments, corporations, persons of all demonics.
From: Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:58:25 +1100 To: [This is a

backbone.] The situation in Somalia is still very tense. Political
map to understand what follows: http://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/9/99/Somali_land_2006_12_02.png The authenticity of
the Islamic Courts' document is difficult and extremely interesting.
There are strong arguments in both directions and it is conceivable
that the middle position of a document that's slightly altered is
also correct. If this document is what it claims to be, the chance of
ICU verification seems remote. Like many conjectures it is
falsifyable, but not provable. Further, there doesn't seem to be a
direct way to contact the ICU. Contact (for me) would require
hopping through Somali refugee relationships. Looking instead to
falsify the translation, I presented the first half page to a Somali
reader (from Somaliland), but as soon as they saw "secret decision of
islamic court", their heart grew fearful and their hand's restless
enough to return it. Looking at motivation: There are only two
items in the document damaging to the Islamic Courts Union, of these,
only the first is substantive. The ICU denies expansionist ambitions
on the north of Somlia (Puntland and Somaliland) -- though these
ambitions are now clear to everyone, back before the ICU took
Mogadishu, the perception was different. Putland claims to be an
autonomous region, while Somaliland [http:// www.somaliland.gov/],
declared independence (unrecognised) in 1991 and subsequently
mandated by referendum in 2001. The UN/US/Ethiopian backed government
-- the Transitional National Assembly (TNA), is opposed to
Somaliland, despite its success as an independent Kurdish- style
democracy over 15 years. Somalia's new transitional government is
staunchly opposed to the referendum. Its acting prime minister, Osman
Jama Ali, described it on Wednesday as "a ploy to divide Somalia by
the help of unfriendly foreign countries and opportunist
individuals". [http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1361394.st] We can
see what must of been the threat structure last year, prior to the
ICU capturing the capital [in order, merging Ethopia into the TNA]
TNA: ICU, Somaliland, Puntland ICU: TNA, Puntland Somaliland: TNA,
Puntland Putland: TNA, ICU, Somaliland So Somalia land and the ICU are
natural allies and the ICU and Puntland are uneasy truce partners.
That's essentially how things were last year. Since the ICU captured
the capital, Mogadishu, perceptions and relationships have shifted:
TNA: ICU, omaliland, Puntland ICU: TNA, Puntland, Somaliland
Somalialand: ICU, TNA, Puntland Puntland: ICU, TNA, Somaliland The
document claims the imprimatur "Islamic Republic of Somalia". The ICU
never publically refers to itself using these words and nor does the
press -- to do so would be to STAKE AN ISLAMIST CLAIM ON ALL OF
SOMALIA, including Puntland and Somalialand. There are 4 pages of
google references to "Islamic Republic of Somalia" (the Somali
translation is a google whack), and most are of this form (June
2006): "The former head of the JIC, Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, will be
the chairman of the council's executive committee, which will be
in charge of day-to-day running of the Islamic courts," an Islamist
official said. "This is one step short of calling for the
official establishment of the Islamic Republic of Somalia," said
Ahmed Hassan, a Somali democracy advocate.
[http://mwcnews.net/content/view/ 7835/207/] Or this, also from June
2006: From the ashes will rise the Islamic Republic of Somalia
modeled much like Iran where we are in a developing highly
intelligent nation ran by Islamic Law.
[http://www.esai.org/myESAi/viewtopic.php?
t=8964&sid=cd700d7cd0909f210b92841ab3dab9c3] Behold the hidden
darwiish of espionage -- not the content, it's the imprimatur itself.
When we look at the remaining references to "Islamic Republic of
Somalia", we hear half whispers; users registering themselves,
claiming to be from that invisible republic: [http://
www.somalilife.com/member-viewprofile-36588.html] and the occasional
Somali refugee using it informally to refer to UIC controlled areas.
But examine this quote from July, not picked up by other wire
services. Is it a slip of Aweys' tongue or the reporter's pen?
The local Shabelle media group quoted on Monday the Islamists'
hardline leader, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, as saying bin Laden's
comments had "nothing to do" with his movement. "It's nothing more
than a friendly call because Osama shares the pain with the Islamic
republic of Somalia," he added. [http://www.hananews.org/
WholeArticle.asp?artId=6158] The most we can say is that the
imprimatur, however it got to be that way, is sufficient motivation
for TNA to spread it around.
---
- Now lets look at John Young's smeary "Care has to be maintained all
along to avoid leaking of this information. Whosoever leaks this
information and is found guilty should be shot.". It enters the mind
like a scripted dramatic effect. But our supposed author, Aweys, is
all about dramatic effect and dramatic affect! His other statements
often carry this flourish. Now consider the last four words; "and is
found guilty" -- an unusual thing for a forger who wished to
discredit Aweys to say, but something Aweys, not as a general, but as
a judge and scholar of islamic law, would find comfortable.
---
- Forensic attack. I had assumed that the English translation was
produced by the TNA. Looking at the binary strings in the English
".doc" translation (word users can try "show document info"), we see:
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA Captain Weli Normal Microsoft Office Word
Department of State Microsoft Office Word MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
The salient features are "Islamic Republic of Somalia", "Captain
Weli" and "Department of State". "Department of State" is
cartoonish, but all over the world, the powerless ape the powerful.
Yet some Word meta-information is easier to change than others -- was
the version of Word use to prepare this document licensed to a
different DEPARTMENT OF STATE? Would the UIC bother filling out
organization fields on its Windows installations? Was another
country's Department of State careless in its forgery? The US
supports the TNA. It's difficult to imagine the TNA, which is
fighting for its very existence, producing such a forgery entirely on
their own. The translation, together with the jpg, was deliberately
passed onto the Chinese at diplomatic level in mid October, BY THE
TNA. If the document is not a forgery, the TNA must have been leaked
or captured the paper document or the jpegs AND an English
translation by the UIC (in electronic form) or... THE LEAKER IS THE
TRANSLATOR IS CAPTAIN WELI. It is possible that both documents were
flowing through the UIC electronically. Only 7.6 million, or about
50% of Somalia speaks the Somali language. In the south, where the
UIC draws its support, there are a number of other language groupings
[http://www.ethnologue.com/ show_country.asp?name=SO] the most popular
of which is Maay [approx. 1 million speakers]. Is English used as the
second language for orders flowing through the UIC from Aweys?
Islamic Judges can read Arabic. Why wasn't the translation into
Arabic? Or was it translated into a number of languages in the style
of the European parliament? Are UIC regions networked enough for
electronic distribution of Aweys orders? If the Aweys leak is a
forgery, then taking the extra effort to make the electronic
translation to English appear to originate with the UIC is an act of
the highest perceptual idiocy or very creative reverse psychology.
Both nice phrases and both in full flower down Langley way.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:12:20 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] This is a good analysis and suggests
how to respond to doubts about a document, or for that matter, for a
document for which there are no immediate doubts but probably should be
questioned as a good practice for a leak-promoting source like this:
skepticism as a premise of providing leaked documents. The MSM all too
often substitute a prefabricated authority for skepticism of what it
publishes. Whereas scholarly work, the best of it, presents
counterarguments as part of a presentation, on the assumption that
discourse is superior to pontification, or worse, infalliability.
Leaks should be doubted and doubts answered by leakers or those who
distribute the leakables. An iron-clad leak is a phony or a lie. It
does require more work to perform an exegesis of a leaked document
weighing the pros and cons, but that is what it takes to avoid the trap
of vainglorious pride in being a leaker and the subsequent lure of
leaking crap to remain in the spotlight -- the politician's disease.
Or the other trap is pretending authority where it is not deserved,
indeed, where reputation and reliability are marketed as come-ons, thus
the celebrated MSM and its bastard children, the nameish blogs seen as
sidebars to other nameish blogs, self-referencing one another into
triviality. The spooks treat forging and forgeries as high art,
producing and challenging, some claim there is no higher purpose of the
spies than to masterfully forge and to undo a master forgery. Takes one
to know one. The same is true of leakers: there is hardly a better
means to get a false and/or true story into the public domain, or
better, into the most secret caverns of suspicious noggins like that of
James Jesus Angleton and his ilk among the Soviets, Israelis, Brits,
and so on. Spooks practice this on each other, in training and in
practice. The saying is that analysts rule for their unquenchable
disbelief, and nothing that goes up the chain of command without
powerful dissent is believable, so biased are promoters that they are
unable to tell the full story, that is, preach. Thanks for moving in
the rightly dubitable direction.
From: Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:15:45 +1100 To: [This is a

backbone.] http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: From: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:32:45 +1100 [This is a

backbone.] A bit of affectionate rototilling: 1. slickify occasional
wording, especially in the first few pages 2. following Skunk, cut
words etc for size and style 3. cut/town down what could be painted as
left wing bias using rhetorical tricks"It is" -> "Critics say" etc 4.
tone down criticisms over shooting leakers. Shooting people who leak
war cabinet documents is normal. Even the rosenbergs got it in the
neck in peace time. If it's fake it's there to encourage distribution
via the dramatic violation of spreading the damn thing, which btw, is
working a treat. let me know if you disagree with this. 5. tone down
some implicit value judgements which I suspect are actually cultural
assumptions. 6. delete some things which I thought were true, but did
not represent it statistically, since some things when mentioned are
"instant moral death sentences" to the reader. e.g as soon as you
know a man's sheets have seen goat fur, even if it was 20 years ago,
this will be the lens through which you see his every action 7. fix up
a problem with the document analysis ("Islamic Republic of Somalia")
8. add explicit WL reference. Feels nice. A perhaps too long in the
middle, but the writing is strong and I couldn't see any easy place
to cut it. I'm sure I've dropped some words as seems to be my habbit.
Anyone see them? Not changed, but needs to be:
Today/yesterday/recently/this week etc references have to go. We can
only ref "Tuesday" etc if we know it's going to be published that
same week, but "Today/Yesterday", is very unlikely without prior
arrangement. Also relative dates make updating / republishing painful.
Last some parts [esp, last] need updating to reflect the Ethiopian
air attacks. While final paragraphs are not as important as initial
paragraphs, they rank#2. Haven't done much with these as I assume
xxxxxx will update. Otherwise it's ready to roll! Hope you're happy
with that xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To: From: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:33:21 +1100 [This is a

backbone.] [] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v3.doc
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:04:09 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Quite an excellent report, much
superior to what appears in the MSM. More thoughtful about the first
and continuing casualties of war, diplomacy and commercial journalism:
the truth about and critical examination of information sources.
Where, when and how is it to be made public along with the original
document? While perhaps implicit, there could be an invitation for
critical comment by readers to continue the discourse. And if so, to
what or whom are comments to be sent?
From: Subject: Re: [WL] new somali article(v3) more on Bourbaki Date:
Mon, 25 Dec 2006 18:55:06 +1100 To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com>
John, you set an example to us humble rabble and lift our spirits
with your gentile tidings. Keep up our hopes, our e-spirit de
corpuscular; draw forth our anger, our courage -- and our fire -- to
lick at the damp paper of uncivilization until it catches and our
hearts are warmed by the conflagration of basement mendacities the
world over. Let our smiles be woken by flowers of openness pushing
through the ash from below. We are compelled to act, as we are best
able, for a man who witnesses injustice but does not act, becomes a
party to a cascade of injustice, via the iterative diminution and
pacification of his character. It is our plan to foment political
and financial support for WL. To do that we need a commanding voice.
Everywhere we see professional sayers and professional knowers, but
the demands of each mean little intersection and the world finds
itself with brainless words and wordless brains. By uniting a handful
of knowers together in harmony we can project our voice without
devoting our minds to the preferments and petty intrigues of moguls.
We have the collective sources, personalities and learning to be, or
rather, appear to be, the reclusive ubermench of the 4th estate. We
will take the non-linear blessing such a position affords and apply
it to our great task of DIY universal open governance. Our rules
follow that of the French Bourbaki who through their allonym set the
mathematical world to right in the first half of the 20th C with
internal agreement by exhaustion and the purification inherit in non-
attribution of ego. Ben likes to quotes Woodruff thus "There is no
limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind
who gets the credit." For the Somali document I am not sure of the
venue. I've had a couple of things published in Counterpunch
recently, so have an in with Cockburn and the content and style is an
easy fit. Suelette and I have had junk published in the London
Independent, Age, SMH, Australian etc, but this article is a bone too
big for the dailies to chew, and although it might be happy with
fragments, my feeling is it will pick them from the Counterpunch
midden without our efforts. My only hesitation vis-a-vis Counterpunch
is the readership, which though large, tends to pal up on one pew and
sometimes even sings and claps. We're open to other venue
suggestions, and very happy to take edits, since your are still a
great stylist. When WL is deployed, feedback will be, like Wikipedia,
an act of creation and correction; the Aweys document and those like
it will eventually face one hundred thousand incensed Somali
refugees, blade and keyboard in hand, cutting, cutting, cutting apart
its pages until all is dancing confetti and the truth.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. On 25 Dec 2006, at 17:04, John Young wrote: > Quite
an excellent report, much superior to what appears in the > MSM. More
> thoughtful about the first and continuing casualties of war, >
diplomacy and > commercial journalism: the truth about and critical
examination of > information > sources. > > Where, when and how is it
to be made public along with the original > document? > > While perhaps
implicit, there could be an invitation for critical > comment by >
readers to continue the discourse. And if so, to what or whom are >
comments > to be sent?
From: To: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 08:24:05 -0600 [This is a

backbone.] Your edits are great. Good to get more than one set of
hands on the document, to maximise rhetorical and stylistic
flourishes. With regard to the document analysis, I take it you
discovered the same thing I did: the "Islamic Republic of Somalia" is
the *title* of the document, not its location, and word automatically
titles the document by its first line. Need to adjust for this.
Venues: In addition to counterpunch, the following crossed my mind,
though I haven't really thought them through. The Nation? Monthly
Review? ZNet? Of these, the first two would be great to get into, and
ZNet might be good regardless of where else we go... their massive and
useful database of essays would be great to be in, and a contribution
to understanding amongst the community there. The longer we leave it,
the more updating we have to do, so I propose getting it out sooner
rather than later. Remaining edits: I'll see what I can do. If
somebody else can get in and do them first, go right ahead. There's
not much to do now.
backbone.] > With regard to the document analysis, I take it you
discovered the same thing I > did: the "Islamic Republic of Somalia"
is the *title* of the document, not its location, and word
automatically titles the document by its first line. Need to >adjust
for this. No! I don't use Word. This very important observation of
yours naturalizes the translation provenance and a couple of my edits
need be reversed in light of it. Eg I XXXX'd out Weli's name just in
case he was the leaker, but now we can reveal it. It also makes the
"State Department" label more interesting and confirms that the TFG's
angle on the document is what we thought i.e focus on the
appellation. The US and others are paranoid about Iranification so we
can see the motivation for spreading it outside Somalia. I think this
slightly increases the chance that its a forgery, as the reverse
psychology needed to have the UIC undertaking the english translation
was too clever by half. We can now cut out the discussion as to the
translation origin. Venues: In addition to counterpunch, the following
crossed my mind, though I haven't really thought them through. The
Nation? Monthly Review? ZNet? Of these, the first two would be great
to get into, and ZNet might be good regardless of where else we go...
their massive and useful database of essays would be great to be in,
and a contribution to understanding amongst the community there. The
monthlies tend to have long lead times which may not suit us, but
they're worth hitting. Does anyone have contacts there? We need a
mini bio (pick truths from all of us) for bourbaki and a less obvious
name though "Jack Bourbaki" sure is kind to the tongue. I have a
washington voice mail service I'll set up with the identity.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 11:57:05 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Has the Word doc been subjected to
the program which reveals hidden revisions and their authors? I don't
have it but Richard Smith says he's written a program to show the
concealed revisions: http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm
The original PDF might also reveal hidden information with a bit of
probing. Recall that NSA and others now warn about sanitizing Word to
PDF conversions: http://www.nsa.gov/snac/vtechrep/I333-TR-015R-
2005.PDF Beware of attributions like Department of State, they
regularly pop up along with TLA nyms. Even idiotic spammers use them.
None of this should hold up publication for that will set in motion a
slew of tests from a wide variety of skeptics eager to debunk. The
first debunkers will probably be the media approached to lend
credibility and provide exposure. They, rather their lawyers, are ever
eager to avoid liability and, worse, loss of reputation marketability.
The fret a lot about being stung by "leaks," black and white. The
analysis could bring them around, but it also conveys suspicion of
authenticity. Too much caution, though, sharply limits what gets
published. This forum got to face the fact it will be treated with
caution until a strong bonafide is established, maybe requiring a ride
on the back of a gold plated reputation, but that's might hard to come
by. Still, all the gold-plates once were once fools gold and rejected
by the old reputables, then wham, a supernova of expose brought an
invite into the comfy club. Most exposers never make it, and most
leakers don't get the attention they have dreamed of. I think the Net
offers opportunities the MSM just won't provide until the gauntlet is
run.

backbone.] The additional metadata: $ catdoc -v
Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc File Info block version 193 Found
at file offset 128 (hex 80) Written by product version 24689 Language
1033 This is document (DOC) file File uses extended character set File
created on Windows Using default character set Textstart = 1536 (hex
600) Textlen = 5908 (hex 1714) No surprises there. Language 1033 is
english. Can't seem to find a ref to product version 24689. Might be
interesting if that was US govt or African (font reasons) MS issue.
$ wvSummary Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc Metadata for
Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc: Editing Duration = 2009-
04-22T19:33:48Z msole:codepage = 936 Generator =
"Microsoft Office Word" Last Modified = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z
Creator = "Captain Weli" Revision = "2"
Number of Pages = 1 Number of Words = 782 Title =
"ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA" Created = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z
Subject = "" Template = "Normal" Keywords =
"" Description = "" Number of Characters = 4462
Security Level = 4462 Last Saved by = "hi"
msole:codepage = 936 Number of Lines = 37 Number of
Paragraphs = 10 Unknown1 = 5234 Company = "Department
of State" Scale = FALSE Links Dirty = FALSE
Unknown3 = FALSE Unknown6 = FALSE Unknown7 = 726502
Salient points here; The last modification date is Oct 03, though it
is the second save. This is only Creation date == last modified. I'm
not sure what that implies; perhaps the document was copied to
another computer for the second edit. Can't find an easy ref to
security level 4462. The account name, 'hi' almost seems intended for
us! Timeline: Sep 18 Attempted Assassination of President Abdullahi
Yusuf in Baidoa. Brother and 5 guard killed. Oct 03 Final edits to
Aweys english translation Oct 14ish Document sent to Chinese Nov 02
President Yusef Arrives in Beijing Nov 04 Forty eight African countries
that have diplomatic relations with China participate in a two-day
summit.
Subject: metadata dump for somali .doc and timeline analysis [chinese
motivation] Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:44:15 +1100 To: The additional
metadata: $ catdoc -v Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc File Info
block version 193 Found at file offset 128 (hex 80) Written by product
version 24689 Language 1033 This is document (DOC) file File uses
extended character set File created on Windows Using default character
set Textstart = 1536 (hex 600) Textlen = 5908 (hex 1714) No
surprises there. Language 1033 is english. Can't seem to find a ref
to product version 24689. Might be interesting if that was US govt or
African (font reasons) MS issue. $ wvSummary
Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc Metadata for
Translation_of_Aweis_Letter_1_.doc: Editing Duration = 2009-
04-22T19:33:48Z msole:codepage = 936 Generator =
"Microsoft Office Word" Last Modified = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z
Creator = "Captain Weli" Revision = "2"
Number of Pages = 1 Number of Words = 782 Title =
"ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA" Created = 2006-10-03T18:50:00Z
Subject = "" Template = "Normal" Keywords =
"" Description = "" Number of Characters = 4462
Security Level = 4462 Last Saved by = "hi"
msole:codepage = 936 Number of Lines = 37 Number of
Paragraphs = 10 Unknown1 = 5234 Company = "Department
of State" Scale = FALSE Links Dirty = FALSE
Unknown3 = FALSE Unknown6 = FALSE Unknown7 = 726502
Salient points here; The last modification date is Oct 03, though it
is the second save. This is only Creation date == last modified. I'm
not sure what that implies; perhaps the document was copied to
another computer for the second edit. Can't find an easy ref to
security level 4462. The account name, 'hi' almost seems intended for
us! Timeline: Sep 18 Attempted Assassination of President Abdullahi
Yusuf in Baidoa. Brother and 5 guard killed. Oct 03 Final edits to
Aweys english translation Oct 14ish Document sent to Chinese Nov 02
President Yusef Arrives in Beijing Nov 04 Forty eight African countries
that have diplomatic relations with China participate in a two-day
summit.
To: From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:00:06 +1100 [This is a

backbone.] Cyberspace reflections of political realities: Official
Somali gov web-site: http://somalia-gov.info Bandwidth Limit
Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due
to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again
later. Apache/1.3.36 Server at www.somali-gov.info Port 80
To: From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:49:10 +1100 [This is a

backbone.] Based on the ministers etc, it looks like an oil for arms
swap. [leaked via chinese intercept of Somali Govt communications].
trusted source. Subject: The Great China Project From: Faisal Ahmed
Yusuf Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:57:45 +0400 Dear Amb. Mohamed Awil and
Abdirahman Haji; YE, first of all I am very sorry about the sad
happening at our Embassy premises and what the mindless people did to
our national property. Also, this is to thank you for the continuous
support and cooperation provided to us, in order to make this mission
a successful one. Brothers, as I was just talking to brother Syed
Ali and Abdirahman, and having obtained now the consent, elderly
blessing and directives of HE, the President, thanks to Syed Ali for
that, it is about time to do the last few actions requested by CHEC.
The Preliminary delegate coming to Beijing for the meeting consist of:
Ministers: 1-Hon. Said Hassan Shire, Minister of Rebuilding and
Resettlement. (Invitation letters, tickets, and hotel arranged
already). 2-Hon. Abudlahi Yusuf Harare, Minister of Petroleum. (Please
correct the name for me if Harare is just nickname and not the
official third name) Brothers, as CHEC requested, we need to
officially request a meeting between our above mentioned ministers
and: 1-With the Chinese Minister/Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(international Cooperation liaison office) 2-With the Chinese
Minister/Ministry of Commerce. 3-With the Governor of Export and Import
Bank. As indicated by the CHEC, a sample draft letter to each of the
above dignitaries could be as attached (It is just a sample and you
may amend it as deemed fit), as CHEC indicated, the president office
could send this to the Chinese embassy at Nairobi, Kenya, while Amb.
Mohd Awil could send the same directly to the Chinese ministries.
Grateful if you could both make the request on urgent basis, please.
CHEC, believes we should send via to two channels at the same time,
please. YE, additionally, brothers there are some of us who are coming
there to Beijing to lobby for the project, in a very SILENT manner we
will be working from the background and support the Ministers,
President delegates, Embassy so that the mission ends with the
anticipated successes. Sinosom delegates: 1-Mr. Isse Haji Farah 2-
Mr. Kadir Abdulrahman Mohamud 3-Mrs. Mariam Abdulahi Yusuf 4-Mr. Feysal
Ahmed Yusuf. With lots of anticipation and forward looking, this is
put for your kind cooperation and immediate action, please. Best of
Regards; Faisal Hawar.

backbone.] Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we
train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby
eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love. In
a modern economy it is impossible to seal oneself off from injustice.
If we have brains or courage, then we are blessed and called on not
to frit these qualities away, standing agape at the ideas of others,
winning pissing contests, improving the efficiencies of the
neocorporate state, or immersing ourselves in obscuranta, but rather
to prove the vigor of our talents against the strongest opponents of
love we can find. If we can only live once, then let it be a daring
adventure that draws on all our powers. Let it be with similar types
whos hearts and heads we may be proud of. Let our grandchildren
delight to find the start of our stories in their ears but the
endings all around in their wandering eyes. xxxxxxxx
To: From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:46:20 +1100 [This is a

backbone.] Begin forwarded message: > From: wl-person > Date: 28.
Dezember 2006 > To: > Subject: Re: somalia v4 > > Please find attached
two files. The first is a proofed version > with errors corrected
only where I was absolutely certain what the > changes should be
(they are mostly typographical); you should be > able to use your
software to compare this with the one sent to me. > The second file
is a list of concerns about which I wasn't > absolutely certain what
the changes ought to be. Negative numbers > are numberings from the
end of the relevant paragraph, starting > from -1. I've included
explanations where I felt them necessary, > and recommendations where
I have been able to think of some. Given > the hour, many of them
are probably more terse than they should be, > and I've probably
missed a few things, but I hope you still find it > all useful. > >
[] http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v4_proofed.doc []
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v4_proofnotes.txt

backbone.] Changes: 1. adapted and smoothed intro in light of
ethiopian invasion. 2. few other clean ups. not many 3. added hanna's
timeline and chinese oil for arms / african-china congress analysis,
and further translation .doc forensics 4. purged discussion about
translation source Does NOT include the proofs sent by xxxxxxxxxxxxx
to this list in the last half hour. xxxxxxxxx, if you don't hear
from me again before reading this message, can you do the final put
together (use merge changes)? Nice work xxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxx, anonymous,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx & JY. A very promising and timely result. Let's hope
it gives the poor Somalis succor -- they're going to need it. []
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/inside_somalia_v5.doc
From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:08:44 +1100 To: [This is a

backbone.] Changes: 1. v4.1 merged with v5 2. americaniZe spelling
3. beautify intro little more Have a look. I like it. I'll shop it
around later today, barring the most dramatic discoveries. Only 1.1
million - 2 leaks to go...

backbone.] xxxxxxxx & interviewed xxxxxxxxx a few years back around
the time of his work exposing Crypto AG. But JYA will find this
amusing: I'd be happy to help as an advisory board member. I will
think about others who may be also interested and provide you with
their email addresses. 2 things come to mind -- being able to separate
bogus documents from actual ones -- therefore it may be a good idea
to have a forgery expert on the advisory board as well. John Young
of Cryptome.org has done yeoman's work on publishing documents to the
chagrin of a dozen or more intell agencies. He may also be a good
person to approach. He is adept at anonymizing the sources of his
documents. for future ref: my snail mail address is:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for more secure
communications. best for the New Year, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

backbone.] Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I don't know if you remember me or
xxxxxxxxxxx, but yes, we are also on the WL advisory board. Some of
us are involved writing under a collective allonym for various
strategic reasons (not revealed here) I enclose our first article.
The article is long, but the subject is time sensitive. I know I can
get material into counterpunch, and that venue reflects certain
freedoms, but otherwise I don't have a feel for the american MSM or
quasi-MSM. Can you have a look at the article and suggest placements?
In particular a venue that others thieve from may be unusually
useful. Happy new year! []

backbone.] Fixed several dropped words. Otherwise no change. []
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:09:29 +1100 From: To: [This is a

backbone.] Hi xxxxxxxxxxx, Thank's for the quick reply. The
technology prevents any form of direct censorship -- including by
wikileaks itself. The visible wikileaks organisation can be deposed and
this will not directly effect document provision. There is indirect
communal "censorship" in the manner of wikipedia -- changes can be made
to an entry, including deletions, however, those changes can always be
seen and reverted. This is effectively taking the paper from the top of
the pile and placing it on the bottom of the pile. Still available, but
less visible and a lot more hassle to get to. This hassle factor
denies these items the oxygen of publicity or convience, which we
believe will create a social incentive to only upload material which
doesn't suffer this fate, since there are more convienent venues for
such material. On 12/28/06, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Thanks for
the fascinating message. Wikileaks sounds like a very exciting and
promising undertaking with great potential for good. > > But I think
there are some "philosophical" issues or principles that need to be
clarified before your questions below can be answered, because they
will define the character of your project and they will affect how it
is perceived by friends and foes. > > These issues boil down to the
following: > > Do you recognize any limits on what information may be
published on your site? (If so, what?) > > For example, would you
publish personal private information (home addresses, childrens' school
names, etc.) about govt officials? Information about how to use
explosives with maximum impact? Obscene or racist information, or
information that incites to violence? > > Will you have a procedure for
accepting and considering requests to delete information from your
site? > > Of course, there are different ways to answer such
questions. For example, FAS is rather conservative in this respect--
there are things we will not publish, and occasionally we will remove
documents from online access on request. By contrast, John Young at
cryptome.org seems willing to publish just about anything. > > If you
are seeking to be "sanctified" and to be perceived as a quasi-
journalistic enterprise, then it would be helpful to articulate some
editorial standards on these points. > > Anyway, I will think about
this some more. I hope you will keep me informed as it progresses.
Good luck! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: > Sent: Tuesday,
December 26, 2006 8:31 PM > To: > Subject: advisory board inquiry
[wikileaks] > > xxxxxxx, please pass this around to the relevant folks
(is that just you?). > > WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable
version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and
discussion. Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in
China, Russia and central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of
assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior
in their own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political
impact; this means our technology is (like the WikiPedia) fast and
usable by non-technical people. > We have received over one million
documents so far. We plan to numerically eclipse the content the
English WikiPedia with leaked documents and analysis. > >
[http://www.wikileaks.org/] > > We believe fostering a safe, easy,
socially sanctified way for uncensorable mass document leaking,
publishing and analysis is THE most cost effective generator of good
governance. We seek good governance, because good governance does more
than run trains on time. > Good governance responds to the sufferings
of its people. Good governance answers injustice. > > We are looking
for initial advisory board members to advise us politically, since our
strengths are in building large technical projects such as the
WikiPedia. In particular we'd like your advice > on: > > 1. How can
WikiLeaks help you as a journalist and consumer of leaks? > 2. How
can WikiLeaks motivate, protect, and help your sources or people like
them? > 3. Who are some other good people to approach, of the
figurehead variety and of > the will-actually-do-work variety?
> 4. What is your advice on political frame setting and possible
funding bodies? > > We expect difficult state lashback unless WikiLeaks
can be given a sanctified frame ("center for human rights, democracy,
good government and apple pie press freedom project" vs "hackers strike
again"). Our initial reputation is carried over form the success of the
WikiPedia, but we do not feel this association is, by itself, enough to
protect us. The public support of organisations like FAS, who are in
some sense sanctified, is vital to our initial survival. > > Advisory
board positions will. at least initially, be unpaid, but we feel the
role may be of significant interest to you. > > > ps. Have merry
Christmass and a Happy New year! >
From: To: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:31:47 -0600 [This is a

backbone.] So many minor adjustments, so little real change. This
incorporates all edits so far. Footnotes have been reattached (they
got lost somehow). Some grammar/typos have been fixed. Some smoothing
of corners also. Hopefully we're there now. []
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 06:01:09 +1100 From: To: [This is a

backbone.] Hi xxxxxxxxx, Thanks for your kind words. We've thought
long and hard about this. It's easy to percieve the connection between
publication and the complaints people make about publication. But this
generates a perception bias, because it overlooks the vastness of the
invisible. It overlooks the unintended consequences of failing to
publish and it overlooks all those who are emancipated by being in a
climate where bad governance cannot be concealed. Such a climate is a
motivating force to behave better in the first place and shifts
structures and individuals that generate bad governance away from
positions where they generate poor governance. Injustice concealed
cannot be answered. Concealed plans for future injustice cannot be
stopped until they are revealed by becoming reality, which is too late.
Administrative injustice, by defintion affects many. Government has
ample avenues to abuse revelation, not limited to the full force of
intelligence, law enforcement, and complicit media. Moves towards the
democratisation of revelation are strongly biased in favor of justice.
Where democratised revelations are unjust they tend to affect isolated
individuals, but where they are just, they affect systems of policy,
planning an governance and through them the lives of all. You may
point to a salicious main stream media, but that is not democratised
revelation. We point instead to the internet as a whole, which although
not yet a vehicle of universal free revelation, is very close to it.
Look at the great bounty of positive political change pooring forth as
a result. WikiLeaks reveals, but it is not primarily a tool of
revelation. There are many avenues on the internet for revelation. What
does not exist is a social movement to that makes acting ethically by
leaking a virtue. What does not exist is a comfortable way for everyone
to leak safely and easily. What does not exist is a way to turn raw
leaks into into politically influential knowledge through the
revoutionary mass collaborative analysis of wikipedia. Sufficient
leaking will bring down many administrations that rely on concealing
reality -- including the US administration. Ellsberg calls for it.
Everyone knows it. We're doing it. In relation to timing; We intend to
go live with a reduced system in the next month. Untill then we are
publishing selected analysis in convential venues to get some material
out and encourage assistance. We're gradually scaling up. At the moment
we have certain asymmetries- e.g more leaks than we can store or index.
It's just a matter of gradually inspiring increasing commitment and
resources from generous people. Like yourself :) 12/29/06,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I didn't realize that, thanks.
From my perspective, I think this approach is problematic, since
publication of information is not always an act of freedom. It can
also be an act of aggression or oppression. Because it is so potent I
don't think it should be automated to the point that it goes beyond
human editorial intervention. But I understand there are advantages to
doing so. > > The Somalia piece looks very interesting (though I am not
an expert on the subject matter) and it seems like a good opening move
for wikileaks. > > Do you have a date in mind for when you will start
publishing? I could probably help spread the word. >
From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:07:56 -0600 To: [This is a

backbone.] Gotta go now, will do rest later. counterpunch
Electronic form only Submit to counterpunch[a t]counterpunch.org
Length: you have a better chance with 500-2000 words. Editors don’t
guarantee any response to submissions. Phone 1(707) 629-3683 or 1(800)
840-3683 znet Article and graphic submissions to chris.spannos[a
t]zmag.org or sysop[a t]zmag.org (different addresses given on
different pages on their site) No requirements seem to be given. I’ve
Mike Albert says they’ll publish almost anything that fits with their
general philosophy and politics. zmag Article submissions to zmag[a
t]zmag.org or lydia.sargent[a t]zmag.org (different addresses given
on different pages on their site) Unsolicited submissions welcome.
Letters should be succinct and may be edited for length. Article
submissions due 25th of each month -- the 25th of January for the
March issue, and so on. Best to email articles. Articles should include
a short, two sentence, biography. No guarantees. Address: 18 Millfield
Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543 Phone: +1 508 548 9063 Fax: +1 508 457
0626 csmonitor Length 500 (for fairly simple stories) to 1,400 words
(for more in- depth pieces). “When you file a story with us, it is
assumed that the piece is original and exclusive to us for 90 days
from the date of publication.” “we accept a new writer's work "on spec"
only. That means you give us the opportunity to read your piece
before we decide whether to accept it; and our agreeing to look at
something on spec implies no financial obligation on our part. We try
to render verdicts on pieces quickly, but we are often inundated, and
you should feel free to pester us for an answer on a perishable
story.” basic rate for a story is $200 to $225. “Monitor coverage
though you may have to write it before journalists from other US
dailies file their day-one stories almost always has to read like a
day-two analysis.” Copy deadline for news is 7 a.m. EST the day before
publication. Email for inquiries: regional editor for Latin
America/Africa Matt Clark http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-
bin/encryptmail.pl? ID=CDE1F4F4A0C3ECE1F2EB, phone +1 617 450-2433,
with copy to Amelia Newcomb newcomba[a t]csps.com village voice,
aljazeera Couldn’t find any submission guidelines. Don’t take
unsolicited submissions, I guess.
From: Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:15:17 +1100 To: [This is a

backbone.] Search space constraints: 1. memorable 2. only one or
two valid spellings, obvious to all 3. gender neutral or masculine
4. preferably two syllables (first) one second 5. preferably first
name errors checks last name etc 6. clever and inducing pride in
insiders 7. no or very few google references to full name 8.
preferably no or few references even to last name e.g like famous ALP
insider, "Hillary Bray", Spi Ballard, Lee Kline., Harry Harrison,
Jack Lovejack, Larry Lovedocs, etc. However none of these fill all
constraints.
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:38:03 +1100 From: To: [This is a

backbone.] We enourage people to act ethically. If, like Ellsberg
they believe that involves disclosing classified information, then we
can only respect their courage and do what we can to make their bravery
meaningful. We're in a better position to that faced by the NYT with
Ellsberg. We have no direct editorial control, the climate is laxer and
the technology grants us great freedom as to jurisdiction. I seem to
recall US tax deductability having clauses about not advocating
violation of US laws? Is this what you were referring to? What's that
law like in practice? Your comment on our make up is salient vis
Eurasia. Do you have advice on who to approach? Most of are not from US
but Tiawan, Europe, and Oceania. We've only just started approaching
additional people. The relative wealth and tolerance of the west gives
us opportunities to be involved in such a project -- I'm pretty sure it
doesn't reflect any dissonanance with our stated objectives -- but it's
interesting that that is your perception. On 12/29/6,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Most of these distinguished
individuals are of course associated with leaks in the U.S., not in
Eastern Europe, China or Russia. And they more or less openly advocate
defiance of U.S. laws on disclosure of classified information. That
may be your position too. But if so, it would probably disqualify the
effort from U.S. foundation support... > > -----Original Message----- >
From: > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:58 PM > To: > Subject: Re:
advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] > > Hi xxxxxxxxxx. Thanks for your
Soros suggestion. As you might know, one of the first things such
organisatons look for is who is on your advisory board ;) > > So far,
among the people who may be known to you, we have xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
John Young, and xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and I suspect Dan Ellsberg, but this has
yet to be confirmed. > > On 12/29/06, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >
Thanks very much. I can see you have given this some serious thought,
and I believe that I understand your argument. I imagine that I am
neither the first nor the last to raise questions. > > > > Anyway, I
will continue to think about this, and let's see how things unfold. > >
> > One of your questions concerned possible funding sources. One
potential source might be the Soros Open Society Institute: > > >
> http://www.soros.org/

backbone.] Hey xxxxxxxxxx, We've taken the liberty, at least I hope
that's the word, of subscribing you to one of our internal
mailinglists. The name is deliberately obscure, but you should have
received the subscription info by now. Please checkout the archives.
There's no overview document yet, in part because we still working
out what the problem is and what the solution looks like. I think
we're substantially there, but this maybe a lack of perspective(s).
You may want to read http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and
http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; an obscure motivational document, almost
useless in light of its decontextualization and perhaps even then.
But if you read while thinking about how different structures of
power are differentially affected by leaks (the defection of the
inner to the outer) its motivations may be clearer. The more secretive
and unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and
paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in
minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an
increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide
cognitive decline and hence the ability to hold onto power as the
environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy,
secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open,
just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents,
and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves
them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with
more open forms of governance. Only revealed injustice can be
answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what's
actually going on. Best,
From: Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 04:21:43 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I've
shopped the somali article around to the usual places, but no bites
or rejections yet. My feeling is that this is due to 1. time of
year 2. length 3. new byline with no rep I've asked
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to go intermediary.
From: Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 08:56:55 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] It's
clear to me that as i2p, tor, anonnet and freenet evolves, other p2p
programs become more anon and file-sharing web-sites become more
popular the anon + can't get the cat in the bag part aspects of the
internet will become fait acompli with its general in speed and
sophistication. There will be real free speech -- that also means an
inability to enforce copyrights, which is great since otherwise we
will find all economic growth diverted into the entertainment
industry as the ability to falsify sense-data becomes ever more
sophisticated, but human eyes and brains remain the same. Of course,
this'll only pause things slightly -- those companies will move
instead to the supply of mmorg like sense falsification, but the
regime of better governance that true free expression gives will
enable all manner of positive interventions. Although there is some
argument to be make that speech is still shackled until financial
transactions are free. [otherwise unmonetized free speech competes
with monetized censored speech] WL can advance the
political/governance aspects of these developments by several years
which will have all sorts of positive cascades, not the least of
which is total annihilation of the current US regime and any other
regime that holds its authority through mendacity alone.
To: From: Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:34:21 +1100 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Our
Chinese sources have submitted proof of the electronic monitoring of
the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. We invited the president to join our
cause and he has accepted with characteristic buddhist grace. Begin
forwarded message: From: Date: 2. Januar 2007 06:32:23 GMT+11:00 To:
Subject: Re: Advisory board position Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Happy
New Year 2007. May the year be more meaningful to your noble
activities. Thank you for writing to me. It will be a pleasure to be
part of such important mission. If it is of some benefit in someway,
I am pleased to accept your invitation to serve as initial advisory
board member. I am doing so in my personal capacity and donot
represent the organization I belong to. Should you want someone to
represent the organization, please let me know so that we can discuss
with my other board members. Best wishes, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -------
------- Original message -------------- From: > > We're looking for
initial advisory board members. We think someone > from your
organization may be interested. > > WikiLeaks is developing an
uncensorable version of WikiPedia for > untraceable mass document
leaking and discussion. Our primary targets > are those highly
oppressive regimes in China, Russia and central > Eurasia, but we also
expect to be of assistance to those in the west > who wish to reveal
unethical behavior in their own governments and > corporations. We aim
for maximum political impact; this means our > technology is (like the
WikiPedia) fast and usable by non-technical > people. > We have
received over one million documents so far. We plan to > numerically
> eclipse the content the English WikiPedia with leaked documents and
> analysis. > > [http://www.wikileaks.org/] > > We believe
fostering a safe, easy, socially sanctified way for > uncensorable
mass document leaking, publishing and analysis is THE > most cost
effective generator of good governance. We seek good > governance,
because good governance does more than run trains on time. > Good
governance responds to the sufferings of its people. Good > governance
answers injustice. > > We are looking for initial advisory board
members to advise us > politically and technically. In particular we'd
like your advice > on: > > 1. How can WikiLeaks help the xxxxxxxxxx
cause? > 2. How can WikiLeaks motivate, protect, and help your sources
or > people like them? > 3. Who are some other good people to
approach, of the figurehead > variety and of the will-actually-do-wo
rk variety? > 4. How can we best support xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sourced leaks? What are > the local issues? > > Advisory board
positions will. at least initially, be unpaid, but we > feel the role
may be of significant interest to you. > > ps. Happy New year! >
To: From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:59:48 +1100 [This is a restricted
Subject: Media Request Your website got me intrigued. Can I talk to
someone about the project? Thanks! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This electronic
message transmission contains information from Forbes.com, Inc. which
may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended for the
use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify
the sender by telephone (+1-212-366-8900) or by electronic mail by
replying to this transmission immediately. Thank you very much.
Subject: Reporter wondering... ..who are you? I cover various topics
for science magazine and am interested in your aims and background for
perhaps a short article on the effort. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter
Science Magazine xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:00:24 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
Subject: Questions from Federal Times Dear Sir or Madam, I am trying
to reach someone from Wikileaks for a short article I am writing for
tomorrow (1/4). My questions include: How long has the site been in the
works? When will it go live? What portion of the 1.1 million documents
you mention is from the U.S. government? How do you respond to
criticism that automated leaking of documents is irresponsible? Aren't
some leaks, such as one designed to mislead, bad? Thanks very much.
My deadline is 12pm Thur. Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxx Staff Writer
Federal Times
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Wikileaks
and Untraceable Document Disclosure A new internet initiative called
Wikileaks seeks to promote good government and democratization by
enabling anonymous disclosure and publication of confidential
government records. "WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version
of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis,"
according to the project web site. "Our primary targets are highly
oppressive regimes in China, Russia, central eurasia, the middle east
and sub-saharan Africa, but we also expect to be of assistance to
those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own
governments and corporations." "A system [that] enables everyone to
leak safely to a ready audience is the most cost effective means of
promoting good government -- in health and medicine, in food supply,
in human rights, in arms control and democratic institutions."
Wikileaks says that it has already acquired over one million
documents that it is now preparing for publication. The project web
site is not yet fully "live." But an initial offering -- a document
purportedly authored by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of Somalia's
radical Islamic Courts Union -- is posted in a zipped file here. An
analysis of the document's authenticity and implications is posted
here. Wikileaks invited Secrecy News to serve on its advisory board.
We explained that we do not favor automated or indiscriminate
publication of confidential records. In the absence of accountable
editorial oversight, publication can more easily become an act of
aggression or an incitement to violence, not to mention an invasion
of privacy or an offense against good taste. So we disagree on first
principles? No problem, replied Wikileaks: "Advisory positions are
just that -- advisory! If you want to advise us to censor, then by
all means do so." While Wikileaks seeks to make unauthorized
disclosures technologically immune to government control, an opposing
school of thought proposes to expand U.S. government authority to
seize control of information that is already in the public domain
when its continued availability is deemed unacceptably dangerous.
"Although existing authorities do not directly address the subject,
it appears that reasonable restrictions upon the possession and
dissemination of catastrophically dangerous information can be
constitutionally implemented," suggests Stewart Harris of the
Appalachian School of Law. See "Restrictions are justifiable,"
National Law Journal, December 11, 2006.
Subject: RE: advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] Thanks
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxa blog entry on WL here:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/wikileaks_and_untraceable_docu.
html From: Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:39 PM To: Subject: Re:
advisory board inquiry [wikileaks] Hi xxxxxxxxxxxx, The site is not
yet live in the way it will be (i.e like wikipedia). You can write
about it's developments (we're interested in more volunteers etc) if
you like. We now have the washington tibet association on board (we
received a leak about their chinese penetration). Other than our .tw
people we're still looking for appropriate (i.e hopefully more than
just figurehead) chinese dissidents. The document is available as
/som.zip Take care, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: Sent: Sunday, December
31, 2006 11:20 PM To: Subject: Re: advisory board inquiry [wikileaks]
Hi xxxxxxxxxxx. Thanks again for your comments. Rather than probing
positions on censorship, let's take a rest and look at why we
approached you. Advisory positions are just that -- advisory! If you
want to advise us to censor, then by all means do so. If you feel you
must, you can tell the world that was your advise. An advisory board
that has a uniformity of opinion does not give good advise. We (board)
are all young people. We're not rusted on. You will be heard. Since the
role is only advisory we may do something else. You may resign at
anytime. On 30.12.2006, at 02:22, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: We may have
a basic disagreement that I would describe this way by analogy: I
respect and admire John Young and I check his cryptome.org website
every day. But I also think he is irresponsible when he publishes maps
and images of the homes of government officials. If such actions were
"automated," that would not be an improvement. This is an argument
for doing away with the camera or the internet. Whether you buy such
an argument depends, not on such stuff happening, not even on it
happening more, but rather the ratio of good outcomes to bad. At least,
so it seems to us. Wikipedia has true material people would rather was
not universally known. Yet, we can see, like the camera, the great
reach of these inventions has been a boon for mankind. We think WL
will be far less "sectarian" than Cryptome so the above ratio will be
more favourable to us than Cryptome. I know you would prefer JY to
censor, but given that he doesn't -- what's your position? Qualified
support, or desire for its abolishment?
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's blog entry seems to have triggered off media
interest. This premature and may distract us from our goals. We need
to think quickly and carefully about how to channel it.
From: To: Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:01:01 -0600 [This is a

backbone.] There are benefits to exposure even at this early stage:
greater publicity, widespread knowledge of the project, scaring
oppressive power wherever it resides. Attract more potential users and
board members. Obtain more respect. And costs: greater chance of govt
surveillance/attacks. At this stage not much cover from respectable
advisory board. Without proper launch and clarifications, all sorts of
unfounded attacks can be made. Lose respect. On the one hand, freedom
of information is a respected liberal value, and we may get some
sympathy, but I wouldn't count on it. On the other, institutionally
residing within and sympathetic to authoritarian hierarchical
structures, corporate media will tend towards pillorying the project
as a threat, for any number of potential reasons: for being
irresponsible, derailing war on terrorism, undermining perceived good
work by governments, whatever. Our options include: Make a press
release or something equivalent. Don’t respond. Respond to particular
inquiries. I’m not sure what is the best approach here. Posting a
press release on the website is maybe best? Also, maybe we should
think about posting some sort of statement of principles eventually?
Though it’s maybe a bit early for this? Corporate media will shy away
from or distort nuanced arguments. Need to make a few clear points and
hold to them. I suggest the following, as a start, all up for
discussion. (In particular, we could be more specific, or more vague
about details.) 1. Ethics. We favour, and uphold, ethical behaviour
in all circumstances. We do not believe in unquestioning obedience to
authority in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate arbiter
of justice in their own conscience. Where injustice reigns and is
enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience.
Where the simple act of distributing information may embarrass
authoritarian power structures or expose oppression or major crimes,
we recognise a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such
whistleblowing often involves major personal risk. Just like
whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, this project
provides means and opportunity to minimise such risks. 2. Under
construction. The project is not yet fully under way. Membership of
our advisory board is not yet settled. Website/editorial policies are
not yet fully formulated. No agreed statement of principles is yet
published. 3. Gauntlet. We are no friends of oppressive regimes,
dictators, authoritarian governmental institutions or exploitative
corporations. We fully intend to expose injustice and make the world a
better place; this is our overarching goal and all policy will be
formulated with this goal in mind. 4. Wikipedia gives reassurance.
Concerns raised here regarding privacy and irresponsibility also arise
with wikipedia. The wikipedia project has proved remarkably successful
at providing accurate, relevant and up-to-date information without
breaches of privacy. On wikipedia, irresponsible posting or editing of
material, or posting of false material, can be reversed by other
users, and the results have been extremely satisfying and reassuring.
There is no reason to expect any different from WL. Indeed, as
discovered with wikipedia to the surprise of many, there is hope that
the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may provide
rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and analysis. 5. Room
for debate. There is the possibility of false or malicious leaks.
Despite the example of wikipedia, there is the possibility of leaks
encroaching upon the privacy of innocent individuals. There are
legitimate questions to be asked and discussions to be had. On the one
hand censorship is a hallmark of oppressive power structures. On the
other, if an absolutely free forum for information distribution is
used for irresponsible purposes, it undermines its own goals. In some
sense any forum for freely posting information involves the potential
for abuse, but measures can be taken to minimise any potential harm.
In conjunction with the advisory board, policy will be formulated in
line with these considerations. The overriding goal is to provide a
forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice; beyond
this, no particular method or policy is set in stone.
From: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:05:34 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hi
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thank you for your letter. We're surprised by the very
early press interest , which we would have welcomed later, but which is
now difficult for us, as it will affect our delicate negotiations with
the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies. But as several
journalists have contacted us now, there's clearly no stopping it, so
we'll try do our best to help you. 1. WL was founded by chinese
dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the
US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. 1.1 Our advisory
board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expat
Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US
intelligence analyst and cryptographers. 2. There are currently 22
people directly involved in the project. 3. We haven't sought public
feedback so far, but dissident communities have been been very gracious
with their assistance. 4. The wiki does not require registration and
the users behaves in the same manner as the Wikipedia. You can't see
the wiki on www.wikileaks.org, because the public launch date is at
least a month away. 5. Wikileaks integrates a number of cryptographic
technologies into Wikipedia to create anonymity and censorship
resistance while retaining most of Wikipedia's ease of use and
performance including modified versions of http://freenetproject.org,
http://tor.eff.org, PGP and software of our own design. 6. The
prototype has been successful in testing, but there are still many
demands required before we have the scale required for a full public
deployment. These include additional funding, the support of further
dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media
representative bodies (as "consumers" of leaks), language
regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. 7.
Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-western
authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated
legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in western
administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically
to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its
human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers.
Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no
need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we
were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there
are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions. We
favour, and uphold, ethical behaviour in all circumstances. We do not
believe in unquestioning obedience to authority in all circumstances.
Every person is the ultimate arbiter of justice in their own
conscience. Where injustice reigns and is enshrined in law, there is a
place for principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of
distributing information may embarrass authoritarian power structures
or expose oppression or major crimes, we recognise a right, indeed a
duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing often involves major
personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws in some
jurisdictions, this project provides means and opportunity to minimise
such risks. All the best for the new year, On 04.01.2007, at 08:35,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Hi, I'm a reporter at National Journal’s
Technology Daily. For tomorrow's edition, I'm working on a story about
your "Wikileaks" venture. Since you created the site, your input is
critical to the story. ***THE DEADLINE IS 1:00 P.M. ET TOMORROW
(THURSDAY)*** Do you think you can meet the deadline? If so, here
are my questions. Thanks. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Who founded Wikileaks? What
kind of background does the founder(s) have? How many people are
operating the Web site? What kind of feedback have you gotten so far?
I'm still learning about wikis. Does your wiki require registration or
passwords? Why did you make this decision? From a technological
standpoint, what makes your wiki "uncensorable?" What's next for the
site? Are you concerned about any legal consequences to attempting this
sort of project? Why or why not? Feel free to add anything.
xxxxxxxxxxxx, National Journal's Technology Daily
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:41:07 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Aftergood's report was unexpected,
particularly for showing wikileaks.org was active and the first
document was available. When did access become public, and was that
announced here? Or did Aftergood release private information, say in
disagreement with WL purposes. His comments on WL were disdainful,
and appear to have been made to buttress his own endeavor as more
honorable and respectable -- he has a habit of doing that, but so do
others who cherish their reputation (and carefully nuture support of
those who really have a problem with uncontrolled information as if it
is "dangerous to go too far, yadda, yadda."). Reporters, and keep in
mind they are competitors with WL as much as any keepers of secrets and
peddlers of inside information, (all obsessed with appearing to be
"responsible" arbiters of what information gets published) will most
certainly dig for unfriendly aspects of WL to gain reader attention
and to show they are not complicit in WL unrespectable intentions.
Some will promise one thing to get information and do the opposite for
publication. Some will fuck you for failing to do what they asked.
Expect agents of the authorities to pry into WL by way of journalists,
supporters, funders, advisory board members; that is customary for
those hoping to smoke out opposition. Expect smears, lies, forgeries,
betrayal, bribes, and the host of common tools used to suppress
dissent. Expect taunts, insults, ridicule, praise, admiration,
obsequiousness, arrogance, skepticism, demands for who the fuck are
you, I need the information for an urgent deadline. Expect accusations
that someone else associated with WL has already told me such and such
so why are you being so coy? Expect much flattery and disdain. Beware
of disclosing private information as a means to recruit. Beware of
releasing information about WL founders and supporters, that will be
grist for the truth twisters. Keep anonymous as possible or WL is
doomed. This discussion list is going to be leaked. Anonymize,
anonymize every communication with the press and potential recruits.
Somebody is going to come at me as the name on the NSI registry. The
less I know about WL people the better. And I know for sure that
everyone associated with WL is a bald-faced liar, an agent of the
authorities and the worst of the worst.
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 02:07:36 +1100 Subject: [WL] Re:
Reporter wondering... [This is a restricted internal development
established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Deadline not till next
week...xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter Science Magazine >>>
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 01/03 11:25 PM >>> Some answers to other
questions: On 04.01.2007, at 15:08, Wikileaks wrote: > Hi
xxxxxxxxxxxx. We're surprised and unprepared by all the early media >
interest. What's your deadline? We're mostly mathematicians. We > like
Science. > > On 04.01.2007, at 08:59, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>
..who are you? I cover various topics for science magazine and am >>
interested in your aims and background for perhaps a short article on
>> the effort. >> >> xxxxxxxxxxxx, Reporter >> Science Magazine >> I
am trying to reach someone from Wikileaks for a short article I am
writing for tomorrow (1/4). My questions include: How long has the site
been in the works? When will it go live? What portion of the 1.1
million documents you mention is from the U.S. government? How do you
respond to criticism that automated leaking of documents is
irresponsible? Aren't some leaks, such as one designed to mislead, bad?
Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I hope the following helps. Presently none of
the 1.1 million documents are directly from western governments.
However, because of the inter-connectedness of governments around the
world, there are documents sent from the US and other western
governments to other governments in our collection. Misleading leaks
-- already well placed in the main stream media. WL is of no additional
assistance to them. If they're of political significance, they will be
very closely collaboratively analyzed by hundreds of wikipedia editors
in a way main stream media leaked documents could never dream of. See
our somali leak for an early example. Best for the new year, Thank
you for your letter. We're surprised by the very early press interest ,
which we would have welcomed later, but which is now difficult for us,
as it will affect our delicate negotiations with the Open Society
Institute and other funding bodies. But as several journalists have
contacted us now, there's clearly no stopping it, so we'll try do our
best to help you. 1. WL was founded by chinese dissidents,
mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan,
Europe, Australia and South Africa. 1.1 Our advisory board, which is
still forming, includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan
refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and
cryptographers. 2. There are currently 22 people directly involved in
the project. 3. We haven't sought public feedback so far, but dissident
communities have been been very gracious with their assistance. 4. The
wiki does not require registration and the users behaves in the same
manner as the Wikipedia. You can't see the wiki on www.wikileaks.org,
because the public launch date is at least a month away. 5. Wikileaks
integrates a number of cryptographic technologies into Wikipedia to
create anonymity and censorship resistance while retaining most of
Wikipedia's ease of use and performance including modified versions of
http://freenetproject.org, http://tor.eff.org, PGP and software of our
own design. 6. The prototype has been successful in testing, but there
are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a
full public deployment. These include additional funding, the support
of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and
media representative bodies (as "consumers" of leaks), language
regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. 7.
Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non- western
authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated
legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in western
administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically
to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its
human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers.
Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no
need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we
were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there
are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions. We
favour, and uphold, ethical behaviour in all circumstances. We do not
or expose oppression or major crimes, we recognise a right, indeed a
jurisdictions, this project provides means and opportunity to minimise
such risks. All the best for the new year, Who founded Wikileaks?
What kind of background does the founder(s) have? How many people are
operating the Web site? What kind of feedback have you gotten so far?
I'm still learning about wikis. Does your wiki require registration or
passwords? Why did you make this decision? From a technological
standpoint, what makes your wiki "uncensorable?" What's next for the
site? Are you concerned about any legal consequences to attempting this
sort of project? Why or why not? Feel free to add anything.
To: From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 02:16:45 +1100 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hello
Wikileaks I just read about your project in the Federation of
American Scientists' "Secrecy News" newsletter and was wondering if you
could answer a few questions. If so, here goes: 1. Who is
behind the Wikileaks project (although that is probably a very dumb
question for an anonymizing service for leaked data). 2. Is this a
project backed by Wikipedia? 3. Will Wikileaks vet leaked documents
to ascertain a genuine public interest defence in hosting the leaked
documents or whether the leak is purely malicious, such as a business
plan leaked by a disgruntled employee? If so, who will do the vetting
and decide on its "genuineness"? If you'd rather talk, my number is
below. If you don't know New Scientist, it is a science and technology
newsweekly (50 years old last November) and we have 2 million print and
online readers, half of them in the US. My deadline is noon Friday
GMT. best regards xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Chief
Technology Correspondent | New Scientist | London |
r===================== DISCLAIMER ====================== This message
is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended Recipient\")
to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is
privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination,
distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its
content by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute
a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as
possible. Reed Business Information Ltd. and its subsidiary companies
Tel: +44 (0)20 8652 3500
=======================================================
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:12:52 -0500 From: To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Thanks.
One quick question: 1. Will the public be able to discuss and
contextualize the documents, visibly, on Wikileaks, similar to the way
people can post replies to blog entries online? (Some folks I've been
interviewing wondered whether the public will be able to participate in
a discussion of the authenticity of the documents, contextualize the
documents and point people to related documents)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx National Journal's Technology Daily
From: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:35:00 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Dear
xxxxxxxxxxxx. Thank very much for your support, which coming from Pogo
means a great deal to us. Although we are primarily targeted at non-
western governments, we think Pogo may have important advice for us on
what is needed in the US. We would like to invite Pogo to join our
initial advisory board either in an organizational or individual
capacity. Warmly, On 05.01.2007, at 03:23, xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hello wikileaks, I am so glad you are doing this. I had the same idea a
month or so ago but know nothing about wiki so wouldn’t even know where
it start. Please keep us informed of your progress. We will send leaks
your way! Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight is an
independent nonprofit which investigates and exposes corruption and
other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal
government.
Subject: interviews? Is anyone available to do a radio interview
regarding this project? -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Friday Morning After"
CKUT Radio, Montreal
Subject: inquiry from the washington post Hello, I'd like to write an
item on Wikileaks for the Washington Post. Could someone please
contact me with more information about the site? My numbers are below.
Many thanks, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Washington Post
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Web site
aims to post government secrets By DANIEL FRIEDMAN January 04, 2007
Forget parking garages. Tomorrow’s Deep Throats can go wiki. A new Web
site that aims to encourage large-scale leaking of confidential
government documents by allowing anonymous disclosure could launch as
early as next month. Beneath a quotation from famed Pentagon Papers
leaker Daniel Ellsberg, www.Wikileaks.org says it seeks to increase
government transparency around the world by using “an uncensorable
version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and
analysis.” Founded by a group that includes technologists and Chinese
dissidents, Wikileaks would promote democracy and prevent corruption,
and is aimed primarily at oppressive foreign regimes, according to
organizers. But the site says it also wants “to be of service to
those in the West who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own
government and corporations.” The site is online but not yet
operating. In an e-mail, Wikileaks spokeswoman Hanna De Jong said
that about 22 people involved in the project are still testing the
prototype and seeking funding from groups like the Soros Foundation’s
Open Society Institute, which promotes democracy and human rights. De
Jong said Wikileaks’ advisory board includes journalists,
cryptographers, a former U.S. intelligence analyst and expatriates
from Russian and Tibetan refugee communities. The group says it has
already received more than 1 million documents. De Jong said none of
those come directly from Western governments, but documents sent from
the United States to other states are included. The site uses various
cryptographic technologies to allow anonymity while maintaining
Wikpedia’s easy use, she said. Spurred by the success of the online
encyclopedia Wikipedia, Web sites nicknamed “wikis” that allow
collaborative authoring by letting anyone edit content are
proliferating, even within government. Ohio’s Hamilton County, which
includes Cincinnati, recently launched an online directory of local
agencies that will be publicly maintained, allowing citizens to add
and delete information, for example. In October, the federal Office
of the Director of National Intelligence unveiled Intellipedia,
intended to improve intelligence sharing by letting authorized
analysts collaboratively edit content on the government’s classified
Intelink Web site. But Wikileaks is radically different. The site makes
broad claims regarding the value of unauthorized disclosures.
“Historically the most resilient form of open government is one where
leaking and publication is easy,” it says. “Public leaking, being an
act of ethical defection to the majority, is by nature a
democratizing force. Hence a system [that] enables everyone to leak
safely to a ready audience is the most cost effective means of
promoting good government.” But the initiative, sure to concern U.S.
officials who want to restrict access to documents, may go too far
even for government transparency advocates. Wikileaks’ intention to
allow anonymous publication of confidential records without oversight
by an accountable editor could cause leaks that invade privacy or
incite violence, Steven Aftergood, head of the Federation of American
Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, wrote Jan. 3 in his online
newsletter, Secrecy News. “I’m sort of waiting to see how it works in
practice,” Aftergood said in an interview. “But in principle I think
it’s much too indiscriminate and susceptible to abuse.” “There’s a
difference in unauthorized disclosure from an authoritarian state
versus disclosure from a democracy,” he said. “In a democratic
system, people have the opportunity to define their own disclosure
standards. If you violate those standards or encourage others to do
so then you are in effect undermining the democratic process.” De
Jong, however, said misleading leaks “are already well-placed in the
mainstream media. [Wikileaks] is of no additional assistance.”
Politically significant leaks will be “collaboratively analyzed by
hundreds of [Wikileaks] editors in a way mainstream media-leaked
documents could never dream of,” she said. She said the group is
prepared for legal attacks. “We design the software and promote its
human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous
volunteers,” she wrote. “Because we have no commercial interest in
the software, there is no need to restrict its distribution. In the
very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the
software censorship-friendly, there are many others who would
continue the work in other jurisdictions.” E-mail: dfriedman[a
t]federaltimes.com Email this story to a friendf
forwarded message: > From: > Date: 5. Januar 2007 09:30:21 GMT+11:00 >
To: > Subject: RE: [WL] RE: article: wikileaks > > Hi
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > > Thanks much. Here's what we published this
afternoon: > > Civil Liberties > Forthcoming 'Wiki' Aims To Leak,
Analyze Documents > by Aliya Sternstein > > A group of Chinese
dissidents and technologists from across > the world is designing an
"uncensorable" version of Wikipedia to > encourage untraceable, mass
leaks and analysis of documents from > authoritarian regimes, the
U.S. government and corporations. > Wikileaks.org, still under
construction, combines a > collaborative "wiki" software interface
with cryptographic > technologies to hide contributor identities and
block censors, said > Hanna De Jong, the organization's spokeswoman.
The protective > programming includes modified versions of the Tor
toolset from the > Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Free Network
Project, PGP and > Wikileaks' custom software. > Wikileaks'
primary targets are closed societies in Africa, > Asia and the Middle
East. "We also expect to be of assistance to > those in the West who
wish to reveal unethical behavior in their > own governments and
corporations," the site reads. > A wiki is basically a public Web
log that anyone with an > Internet browser can add to or modify.
Wikipedia is an online, self- > evolving encyclopedia updated by a
community of users. > Wikileaks was founded by Chinese dissidents,
mathematicians > and startup techies in the United States, Australia,
Europe, South > Africa and Taiwan. Its growing advisory board
contains > representatives from Russian and Tibetan refugee
communities, > reporters, one former U.S. intelligence analyst and
cryptographers, > De Jong said. > "We are prepared, structurally
and technically to deal with > all legal attacks," she said. >
"In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to > make
the software censorship friendly, there are many others who > will
continue the work in other jurisdictions," De Jong added. The >
servers are run by anonymous volunteers, and Wikileaks' software >
will be disseminated for free, if necessary. > Some e-democracy
advocates question the value of publishing > documents without
attribution or authentication. > "The government could be putting
up information to discredit > dissidents," said Leslie Harris,
executive director at the Center > for Democracy and Technology.
"In an oppressive government, we have > no way to know if it's an
attempt at disinformation." She also > noted the dangers of posting
libelous information or sensitive, > personal information on an
unmediated site. > Harris said she hopes the public will be able
to discuss and > contextualize the documents on Wikileaks in a manner
similar to the > way people can make criticisms on blog entries.
> "I think it's very important that there be opportunities for >
people to discuss whether the document is authentic," she said. >
"You should be able to comment visibly about the document and point >
people to other documents." > Wikileaks recently invited Steven
Aftergood, a government > secrecy researcher at the Federation of
American Scientists, to > serve on its advisory board. He publishes
the e-mail newsletter, > "Secrecy News," which often provides links
to hard-to-obtain > documents. > Aftergood said he has not yet
decided whether to get involved > with the venture. "I still want to
see how they launch, what the > focus is and if they're putting out
good material ... and if the > positive outweighs the negative," he
said. > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > National Journal's Technology Daily >
From: > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:18 PM > To: > Subject: Re:
[WL] RE: article: wikileaks > > Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx, > > I like your
summery. > > Yes, this is WIKIleaks. The protective aspects are there
merely to > remove the fear of involvement in this worthy activity.
For > instance, in the case of the example Somalia analysis we
expect > thousands of refugees from the Somali, Ethiopian and Chinese
expat > communities to easily outstrip our example analysis. In this
manner > the political relevance of the documents and their
verisimilitude > will be revealed by a cast of thousands. >
Subject: Media request I'm a freelance reporter who writes for Wired
News, Salon, and other publications. I'm interested in writing a story
about the Wikileaks site and was wondering if there's someone available
to speak with me about it. You can reach me at 510.601.0948 or send me
a number where I can reach you and I'll call you. Regards,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] We can
turn this unexpected difficulty into a great blessing by being crafty
and exuberant in our attentions over the next few days. The hunger for
freedom and truth is clearly so intense that despite having little
more than "we're working on it" and a nice example (that few seem
bother to read in their quest for the salacious) off it goes on its
own exponential of media read, write and rewrite. Random quotes (not
from us) and rephrasing will lead to the most salacious evolving in
the galapagos of quote, edit and requote. What this means is that we
have to answer questions before they're asked and we have to answer
them with statements that optimize max (journalistic lazynes + quote
sexyness). Analogously, the public sphere is warm milk, into which has
leaked our culture. Bacterial growth follows an exponential -- left
unmolested it would become the congealed yogurt of our desires, but
random innocents and malefactors alike are injecting their their own
bacterial strain into the mix. The impact of early strains of
information release (ours and others) will be fantastically amplified
by the exponential process. Consequently we must expend as much
energies on this IMMEDIATELY as we have inorder to set path of future
perceptions, which will otherwise require far more energies to
correct even a day later. Since we can not seal the public sphere from
the influence of others, our only recourse is to continually inject
our informational strain into the ferment. If we keep our strain (our
public positioning ) consistent and quotable we should come to
dominate the culture when opposed by relatively random influences of
others. And despite JYAs seasoned fears, our opponents thus far are
essentially uncoordinated; they do not strike with vigor at the same
point. Here follows our blessing. Because WL has not yet generated ANY
specific enemies (at least outside of China and Somalia), attacks are
generalized ("pro- censorship") , unmotivated, limp-wristed and lack
precision and common direction. This will not be the case once we
release substantial material. That will invoke enemies with specific
grievances. Our previous desire to splash forth only with a fully
operational system with content would have generated both specific
opposition and fears by example. Hence we have a great opportunity --
to push our desired perceptions of what WL is into the world, to set
the key in which future bars of our song are to be played by the
public orchestra, BEFORE it faces any serious opposition.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:16:24 -0800 To: funtimesahead[a

t]lists.riseup.net,Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org> From: John
Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> [This is a restricted internal
with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Certainly all
these inquiries should be answered, perhaps by Hanna, or others using
that wonderfully anonymizing and untraceable name, could provide
inconsistent responses to the consistent questions sounding so much
alike. The wikileak ethical statement is a marvel, totally
unbelievable in the manner of professional peddlers of responsible
leakages. Is there a target date for wikileaks.org becoming
interactive, hyperactive, flooded with spam and attacks and demands to
name names or else? Any advisory board members jumped ship yet?
Subject: Re: [WL] Fwd: inquiry from the washington post Date: Fri, 5
Jan 2007 15:38:03 +1100 To: John Young <jya[a t]pipeline.com> From:
John --- no ship jumps, plank walks or keel hauls. Though some here
may want to feed the sniveling holier than thou After Good Comes Bad
to the swirling creatures of the deep, we will continue to project
puppy dog eye rolls and the greatest generosity, acceptance and
respect. Can you reveal further analysis and advice on which "ethical
statement" you are referring to?
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Dearest
friends, We have decided to pre-empt questions diverted to others
under the less obvious (than a press release) projection of a FAQ.
Please quickly google stories (including news/blog search) for wl
(many now!). Find all the gut directly asked questions and extract
the real question in the reporters mind that motivated the quote and
send them in. For example if a story quotes 'Farrah believes the
impact on Iran will be X' , derive the reporters internal question
"What will be the impact on Iran/Islamic countries/axis of evil?"
What other questions do you predict will be asked? Answer some if you
have time, but send questions quickly! xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: To: Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:36:01 -0600 [This is a

backbone.] Including snippets from recent emails which sounded cool.
Notes: The first question is really general, perhaps too general, but
perhaps it’s worth putting in something like an FAQ, I don’t know, if
only as a framing for saying what we want to say. Rhetoric is
generally overblown, and deliberately so. Feel free to tone down. On
the other hand perhaps there are sufficiently sexy statements for the
press. :P I put in the figure of 22 people, but we might want to delete
this, since it’s liable to change. I put in an approximate launch date
of February/March 2007. But we might not want to put anything like
that in. Please revise, more techie people. Please discuss,
particularly the privacy/irresponsibility question, which is important
to the corporate press. Feel free, in fact, to
rearrange/dismember/redo. It's more a matter of getting the
appropriate words out. What is WL? Why “wikify” leaking? WL 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. 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 facing criminal
charges, 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. But this is just one example. The power of
principled leaking to embarrass governments, corporations and
institutions is amply demonstrated through recent history. Public
scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions
pressures them to act ethically. What 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? When the risks of embarrassment through openness and
honesty 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 cost 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 democratization
is greater than ever. WL is a tool to satisfy that need. WL is
cutting out the middleman, reducing the risk to potential leakers, and
improving analysis and dissemination of leaked documents. WL provides
simple and straightforward means for anonymous and untraceable leaking
of documents. At the same time, WL 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. Instead of a couple of academic specialists, WL
will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any
document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and
falsifiability. They will be 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.
And so on. WL may become the most powerful intelligence agency on
earth, an intelligence agency of the people. It will be an open
source, democratic intelligence agency. But it will be far better, far
more principled, and far less parochial than any governmental
intelligence agency; consequently, it will be more accurate, and more
relevant. It will have no commercial or national interests at heart;
its only interests will be truth and freedom of information. Unlike
the covert activities of national intelligence agencies, WL will rely
upon the power of overt fact to inform citizens about the truths of
their world. WL will resonate not to the sound of money or guns or the
flow of oil, but to the grievances of oppressed and exploited people
around the world. It will be the outlet for every government official,
every bureaucrat, every corporate worker, who becomes privy to
embarrassing information which the institution wants to hide but the
public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and
institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WL can broadcast to the
world. WL will be a forum for the ethical defection of unaccountable
and abusive power to the people. WL will be an anvil at which beats
the hammer of the collective conscience of humanity. How will WL
operate? To the user, WL will look very much like wikipedia. Anybody
can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is
required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably.
Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and
veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and
collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and
write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and
context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude
will be revealed by a cast of thousands. WL will also incorporate
advanced cryptographic technologies for anonymity and untraceability.
Those who provide leaked information may face severe risks, whether of
political repercussions, legal sanctions or physical violence.
Accordingly, extremely sophisticated mathematical and cryptographic
techniques will be used to secure privacy, anonymity and
untraceability. For the technically minded, WL integrates technologies
including modified versions of http://freenetproject.org,
http://tor.eff.org, PGP and software of our own design. WL will be
deployed in a way that makes it impervious to political and legal
attacks. In this sense it is uncensorable. Who is behind WL? WL was
founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company
technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.
Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives
from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a
former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers. There are
currently 22 people directly involved in the project and counting.
What is your relationship to wikipedia? WL has no formal relationship
to wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and
technology. Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that
allowing anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate
collective intelligence and knowledge. Both place their trust in an
informed community of citizens. What wikipedia is to the encyclopedia,
WL will be to leaks. Wikipedia provides a positive example on which WL
is based. The success of wikipedia in providing accurate and up-to-
date information has been stunning and surprising to many. Wikipedia
shows that the collective wisdom of an informed community of users may
produce massive volumes of accurate knowledge in a rapid, democratic
and transparent manner. WL aims to harness this phenomenon to provide
fast and accurate dissemination, verification, analysis,
interpretation and explanation of leaked documents, for the benefit of
people all around the world. What is WL’s present stage of
development? WL has developed a prototype which has been successful in
testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the
scale required for a full public deployment. We require additional
funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights
groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as “consumers” of
leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and
server operators. We have received over 1.1 million documents so far.
We plan to numerically eclipse the content of the English wikipedia
with leaked documents. Anyone interested in helping us out with any of
the above should contact us by email at [insert address here].
When will WL go live? We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate
February or March 2007. Couldn’t leaking involve invasions of
privacy? Couldn’t mass leaking of documents be irresponsible? Aren’t
some leaks deliberately false and misleading? Providing a forum for
freely posting information involves the potential for abuse, but
measures can be taken to minimize any potential harm. The simplest and
most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed
users and editors who can scrutinize and discuss leaked documents.
Concerns about privacy, irresponsibility and false information also
arise with wikipedia. On wikipedia, irresponsible posting or editing
of material, or posting of false material, can be reversed by other
users, and the results have been extremely satisfying and reassuring.
There is no reason to expect any different from WL. Indeed, as
discovered with wikipedia to the surprise of many, the collective
wisdom of an informed community of users may provide rapid and
accurate dissemination, verification and analysis. Furthermore,
misleading leaks and misinformation are already well placed in the
mainstream media, as recent history shows, an obvious example being the
lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of misinformation will find no
assistance from WL, equipped as it is to scrutinize leaked documents
in a way that no mainstream media outlet would dare. WL is immune from
requirements for headlines, sensations and scoops, along with the
doctrinal, ideological and political pressures of the mainstream
media, replacing them with incentives for skepticism, logical
reasoning, and accuracy. In any case, our overarching goal is to
provide a forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice.
All policy will be formulated with this goal in mind. Is WL
concerned about any legal consequences? Our roots are in dissident
communities and our focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes.
Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us
would be seen as a grave error in western administrations. However, we
are prepared, structurally and technically, to deal with all legal
attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda,
but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no
commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict its
distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion
to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who
will continue the work in other jurisdictions. Is leaking ethical?
We favour, and uphold, ethical behavior in all circumstances. We do not
or expose oppression or major crimes, we recognize a right, indeed a
jurisdictions, WL provides means and opportunity to minimize such
risks. We propose that every authoritarian government, every
oppressive institution, every exploitative corporation, be subject to
the pressure, not merely of freedom of information laws, not even of
quadrennial elections, but of something far stronger: the individual
consciences of the people within them. WL, we hope, will be a new
star in the political firmament of humanity.
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Mention
forgot! Since most references are <24 hours new, they are not in the
main google index! Search blogs + news + groups (under "more")
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Any idea
what this may mean? Wikia Inc. 200 2nd Ave. S Suite 306
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 United States Registered
through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name:
WIKILEAKS.NET Created on: 03-Jan-07 Expires on: 04-Jan-09
Last Updated on: Administrative Contact: Wales,
Jimmy jasonr[a t]bomis.com Wikia Inc. 200 2nd Ave. S
Suite 306 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 United
States 17273886691
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:08:36 +0000 From: To: [This is a

backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [This is a restricted internal
development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. > Please do not
> This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle
with an established lawyer > and plenty of backbone.] > > -----------
------------------------------------------------------------- > > Any
idea what this may mean? Either he wants to support WL and is
registering those in order to do so, or he wants to hedge so he's
registering them in order to run his own version, or put his own views
on them. I'd ask, if I were you. Or perhaps I will. > > Wikia Inc.
> 200 2nd Ave. S > Suite 306 > St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
> United States > > Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc.
(http://www.godaddy.com) > Domain Name: WIKILEAKS.NET >
Created on: 03-Jan-07 > Expires on: 04-Jan-09 > Last
Updated on: > > Administrative Contact: > Wales, Jimmy
jasonr[a t]bomis.com > Wikia Inc. > 200 2nd Ave. S >
Suite 306 > St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 > United States
> 17273886691 >

backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [This is a restricted internal
with an established lawyer > and plenty of backbone.] > > > > > --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Thanks. One quick question: > > 1. Will the public be able to
discuss and contextualize the documents, > visibly, on Wikileaks,
similar to the way people can post replies to > blog entries online?
(Some folks I've been interviewing wondered whether > the public will
be able to participate in a discussion of the > authenticity of the
documents, contextualize the documents and point > people to related
documents) [-journo] Interesting question. MySociety recently
released http://www.commentonthis.com/ - they're a nice bunch, I'm
sure they'd share the code with us if we asked.

backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > [This is a restricted internal
with an established lawyer > and plenty of backbone.] > > -----------
------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi
all, > > Can everyone on this list who has functional access to PGP [
i.e will > not cause days of delay to encrypt/decrypt a message]
please send their > public keys to this list? I'd like to keep our
discussions on the path > of least resistance and this this generally
means, open and transparent, > but there some matters we need to
address soon where openness is better > enabled through secrecy; we owe
our sources, even through we keep no > logs or other information that
might identify them, to exercise mindful > diligence (not paranoia) in
response to their courage. > > We're on an exponential; we have no
forces working against us yet, but > there will many in a few months
and these early discussions may take on > an unexpected poignancy. >
[] [PGP key deleted by Cryptome.]
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] My of most
probable guess is he wants to protect them from scalpers, in order to
do as ben suggest. On 05.01.2007, at 21:08, xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> [This is a restricted internal development
mailinglist for w-i-k-i- >> l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g. >> Please do not
mention that word directly in these discussions; >> refer instead to
'WL'. >> This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in
>> Seattle with an established lawyer >> and plenty of backbone.] >>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
- >> >> Any idea what this may mean? > > Either he wants to support WL
and is registering those in order to do > so, or he wants to hedge so
he's registering them in order to run his > own version, or put his own
views on them. > > I'd ask, if I were you. Or perhaps I will. > >> >>
Wikia Inc. >> 200 2nd Ave. S >> Suite 306 >> St. Petersburg,
Florida 33701 >> United States >> >> Registered through:
GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) >> Domain Name:
WIKILEAKS.NET >> Created on: 03-Jan-07 >> Expires on: 04-
Jan-09 >> Last Updated on: >> >> Administrative Contact:
>> Wales, Jimmy jasonr[a t]bomis.com >> Wikia Inc.
>> 200 2nd Ave. S >> Suite 306 >> St. Petersburg,
Florida 33701 >> United States >> 17273886691 >>
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] > I'd ask,
if I were you. Or perhaps I will. > Feel free xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Provided
Wales, Inc. doesn't use these domains for content, the rego certainly
aids us in projection. It's interesting they they seem to be directly
registered by Wales, NOT by the Wikipedia foundation i.e compare the
records to wikipedia. {org,com,net} and mediawiki.{org,com,net}
What's unusual is that he hasn't notified us.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 03:31:57 -0800 From: To: [This is a

backbone.] -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- [Deleted by
Cryptome.]
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] On Jan 5,
2007, at 12:30 PM, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Provided Wales,
Inc. doesn't use these domains for content, the > rego certainly aids
us in projection. > > It's interesting they they seem to be directly
registered by Wales, > NOT by the Wikipedia foundation i.e compare
the records to > wikipedia.{org,com,net} and mediawiki.{org,com,net}
> > What's unusual is that he hasn't notified us. Read carefully. This
doesn't seem to be related to Wikipedia, but rather to Wikia, Inc.
From http://www.aboutus.org/Wikia.com: "Free wiki hosting from Wikia,
using the same MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. ''Wikipedia is
the Encyclopedia. Wikia is the rest of the library.'' Wikia are wiki
communities creating free content with the MediaWiki software. These
are hosted for free by Wikia, Inc., the company which runs the
project. Anyone is free to start a new Wikia in accordance with the
creation policy and terms of use. Wikia was founded by Angela Beesley
and Jimmy Wales, originally under the name "Wikicities", in October
2004. It celebrated its first birthday on November 2, 2005.
Wikicities relaunched as "Wikia" in March 2006 (see the press release
for details). News about the site can be found at news and press
releases. See also the reasons to use Wikia, what Wikia is not, and
then explore or browse the site." Seeing this domain being
registered to Wikia seems to indicate that he *IS* willing to help
us. We should inquire nonetheless. The email address for the Admin
contact looks valid (Jason Richey). Cheers,
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:40:02 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Wales is attempting to protect his
investment. He's businessman before all else, meaning without scruples.
Consider his action an attack on WL, perhaps to be followed by others
if it threatens his commercial operation of reputation building
pretending to be a public service -- like giving out free cigarettes.
Spies and cops do that too with leaks and planted incriminating
material. One of the happy consequences of WL is that participants
will be offered payoffs for inside information, bribes, job offers, fat
gov contracts, promises of being allowed into black chambers.
Dedicated public service offers those bountiful rewards and few can
resist the temptation when presented with alternative consequences of
possessing forbidden goods. Not long after Cryptome was set up and
got a bit of attention from the authorities a woman called with an
urgent request for help get her boy friend out of a jam. Wanted to
meet in an out of the way place. Claimed she needed help hiding the
guy's computer files before the cops found them. Said he was charged
with suspicion of downloading kiddie porn using his mom's computer,
had not done so, only adult material, must have been somebody else, or
the illegal stuff was buried in the legal without his knowledge. She
cried, lots of tears, said she was desperate and terrified of being
arrested herself, had no one to turn to, didn't understand computers,
could I help, heard about me from someone who read something on the
Internet. Sure I said, happy to oblige. God bless you, she said, I
didn't know there were people like you. She said she'd arrange to have
the data sent to me. I said great, just make sure there's no kiddie
porn in it. Nothing ever came, at least not that I could identify.
There have been a couple of dozen other such sting attempts, and
probably a lot more than that made it past our inept filtering. Could
be the planted incriminating material is throughout our archives, ready
to be harvested when needed. Some setups of targets run for years,
even decades, or indefinitely. Some are leaked to scare potential
miscreants. Airing means of suppressing dissent by a slew of tricks is
a WL worthwhile.
From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:00:39 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] I think
JY maybe right -- Wales has scalped it for his commercial Wiki
company, perhaps even automatically.
From: To: Subject: Re: [WL] Wales registers wl.net, wl.com, (others?)
[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-
a-k-s-.-o-r-g. Please do not mention that word directly in these
discussions; refer instead to 'WL'. This list is housed at riseup.net,
an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty
of backbone.] xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> I'd ask, if I were you. Or
perhaps I will. >> > Feel free xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I have. BTW, the New
Scientist person wants to talk to you. Is that possible?
To: From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:57:46 +1100 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Fairly
sectarian (paranoids) but a couple of good question in the mix: Some
obvious questions which spring to mind about wikileaks.org: 1) Are you
serious ? 2) Who are you ? 3) How can you be trusted ? 4) Who is
funding you ? 5) Why is your website hosted on a Google server ? 6)
How is anyone in, say, China, ever going to see it ? 7) How do you
prove that you are not working for, or have been infiltrated by
United States (or other) intelligence or law enforcement agencies or
by political parties or religious cults ? 8) How can document leakers
and whistleblowers trust you are not simply running a honeypot
intelligence gathering operation ? 9) Why do you mention a PGP public
encryption key, with some obscure GPG command line instructions,
when your PGP key is not actually to be found on the major PGP public
keyservers e.g. ldap://keyserver.pgp.com http://www.keyserver.net
http://pgp.mit.edu/ It can be found on some but not all of the
keyservers via http://www.pgp.net However, having to hunt through
multiple PGP Keyservers is not exactly user friendly, 10) Why not
publish your PGP key on your website ? 11) If you are basing your
system on Wikipedia, then how are you going to solve the problems
such as Denial of Service attacks, and the editing and counter
editing / censorship warfare which Wik ipedia suffers from ? It is
disputable that a Wiki is "easy to use" for "non-technical people" -
formatting certainly is not trivial, for anybody used to a Word
Processor or even HTML syntax. 12)What are you doing about
Communications Data Traffic Analysis ? 13) What precautions do you
take to anonymise the sources of your leaked documents, especially
with regard to meta-data in Microsoft Word or Adobe .pdf files,
Microsoft SmarTags, EXIF data in digital im ages, embedded thumbnails
in digital images, characteristic wear patterns on facsimile or
printed documents images, ineptly pixellated or digitally blacked out
redacted or censored parts of documents e tc. ? Your Somali example
includes meta data which mentions an easy to Google name "Captain
Weli", which could be a "Joe job" reputation attack on ex-captain of
Somalia National Airlines, Sheikh Mohamed Moham ud (Captain Weli)"
14)Why do you not have an SSL v3 / TLS v1 encrypted version of your
website ? 15) Why should a document leaker or whistleblower use your
service, in preference to, say 15) Why should a document leaker or
whistleblower use your service, in preference to, say a)Posting to a
distributed Usenet newsgroup or groups b) Sending a document to
http://cryptome.org c) Publishing a video on YouTube d) Publishing
their own blog 16) Why will your system succeed, when various anti-
censorship schemes and software projects such as those by Hactivismo
or even Tor have failed to catch on in a very widespread fashion ?
To: From: Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 03:13:08 +1100 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.]
Disarming. FH along with NED are notorious US State/CIA money
launderers. The goal is not to get them to accept, although that might
be rather interesting, but to make them feel we are on the same "side"
by the early approach and enemy of my enemy is my friend. Begin
Subject: RE: advisory board inquiry I find your project interesting;
however, I would need to get a little more information before I can
discuss it with others in the organization. For example, who is
currently involved in the project? Are you affiliated with another
organization, or is Wikileaks a new group? How do you plan on ensuring
that the documents posted on Wikileaks are legitimate documents and not
forgeries? I look forward to your reply. _______________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Freedom House Website Coordinator 1301 Connecticut
Ave. NW, Fl. 6 Washington, DC 20036 tel: 202.747.7017 fax: 202.293.2840
-----Original Message----- From: Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:29
PM To: Info Subject: advisory board inquiry Please pass this note
around to the relevant good people at FH. WikiLeaks is developing an
uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking
and discussion. Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes
in China, Russia and central eurasia, but we also expect to be of
assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal corruption in their
own governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact;
this means our technology is fast and usable by non-technical people.
We have received over a million documents so far. We plan to
numerically eclipse the content the english wikipedia with leaked
documents. [http://www.wikileaks.org/] We are looking for one or two
initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:
1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and
political corruption 2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced
by FH 3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members 4.
general advice on funding, coallition building and decentralised
operations and political framing These positions will initially
be unpaid, but we feel the role may be of significant interest to FH.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ps. Merry Xmas and a Happy New year!
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hallo
xxxxxxxxxxxxx, I believe you spoke to xxxxxxxxxxxx? We can do an
interview, but this won't make your deadline. Here are some answers
we've prepared for you. I hope you find them useful. Kind Regards,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is WikiLeaks.org? Why "wikify" leaking?
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
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
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 facing criminal charges, 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. Public
citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks
of embarrassment through openness and honesty 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
cost 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 democratization is greater than ever. WikiLeaks is a tool
to satisfy that need. WikiLeaksreduces the risk to potential leakers
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. Instead of a couple of
academic specialists, WikiLeaks will provide a forum for the entire
global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility,
plausibility, veracity and falsifiability. They will be 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. And so on. WikiLeaks may become the most
powerful "intelligence agency" on earth -- an intelligence agency of
the people. It will be an open source, democratic intelligence agency.
But it will be far more principled, and far less parochial than any
governmental intelligence agency; consequently, it will be more
accurate, and more relevant. It will have no commercial or national
interests at heart; its only interests will be truth and freedom of
information. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence
agencies, WikiLeaks will rely upon the power of overt fact to inform
citizens about the truths of their world. WikiLeaks will be the outlet
for every government official, every bureaucrat, every corporate
worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information which 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 a forum for the ethical
defection of unaccountable and abusive power to the people. How will
WikiLeaks operate? To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like
wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical
knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and
untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their
credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context
and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read
and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material
and context. The political relevance of documents and their
verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands. WikiLeaks will
also incorporate advanced cryptographic technologies for anonymity and
untraceability. Those who provide leaked information may face severe
risks, whether of political repercussions, legal sanctions or physical
violence. Accordingly, extremely sophisticated mathematical and
cryptographic techniques will be used to secure privacy, anonymity and
untraceability. For the technically minded, WikiLeaks integrates
technologies including modified versions of FreeNet, , PGP and software
of our own design. WikiLeaks will be deployed in a way that makes it
impervious to political and legal attacks. In this sense it is
uncensorable. Who is behind WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks was founded by
Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists,
from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Our advisory
board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expatriate
intelligence analyst and cryptographers. There are currently 22 people
directly involved in the project and counting. What is your
relationship to wikipedia? WikiLeaks has no formal relationship to
wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology.
Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing
anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate
WikiLeaks will be to leaks. Wikipedia provides a positive example on
which WikiLeaks is based. The success of wikipedia in providing
accurate and up-to-date information has been stunning and surprising to
many. Wikipedia shows that the collective wisdom of an informed
community of users may produce massive volumes of accurate knowledge in
a rapid, democratic and transparent manner. WikiLeaks aims to harness
this phenomenon to provide fast and accurate dissemination,
verification, analysis, interpretation and explanation of leaked
documents, for the benefit of people all around the world. What is
WikiLeakss present stage of development? WikiLeaks has developed a
prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still
many demands required before we have the scale required for a full
public deployment. We require additional funding, the support of
further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media
representative bodies (as consumers of leaks), language
regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. We
have received over 1.1 million documents so far. We plan to numerically
eclipse the content of the English wikipedia with leaked documents.
Anyone interested in helping us out with any of the above should
contact us by email at [insert address here]. When will WikiLeaks go
live? We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March
2007. Couldnt leaking involve invasions of privacy? Couldnt mass
leaking of documents be irresponsible? Arent some leaks deliberately
false and misleading? Providing a forum for freely posting information
involves the potential for abuse, but measures can be taken to minimize
any potential harm. The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a
worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinize
and discuss leaked documents. Concerns about privacy, irresponsibility
and false information also arise with wikipedia. On wikipedia,
irresponsible posting or editing of material, or posting of false
material, can be reversed by other users, and the results have been
extremely satisfying and reassuring. There is no reason to expect any
different from WikiLeaks. Indeed, as discovered with wikipedia to the
surprise of many, the collective wisdom of an informed community of
users may provide rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and
analysis. Furthermore, misleading leaks and misinformation are already
well placed in the mainstream media, as recent history shows, an
obvious example being the lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of
misinformation will find themselves undone by WikiLeaks, equipped as it
is to scrutinize leaked documents in a way that no mainstream media
outlet is capable of. An analogus example is this excellent unweaving
of the British government's politically motivated additions to an
intelligence dossier on Iraq. The dossier was cited by Colin Powell in
his address to the United Nations the same month to justify the pending
US invasion of Iraq. In any case, our overarching goal is to provide a
forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice. All policy
will be formulated with this goal in mind. Is WikiLeaks concerned about
any legal consequences? Our roots are in dissident communities and our
focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe
a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave
error in western administrations. However, we are prepared,
structurally and technically, to deal with all legal attacks. We design
the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are
run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in
very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software
censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work
in other jurisdictions. Is leaking ethical? We favour, and uphold,
ethical behavior in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate
arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where there is a lack of
freedom and injustice is enshrined in law, there is a place for
principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing
information may embarrass a regime or expose crime, we recognize a
right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing normally
involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws
in some jurisdictions, WikiLeaks provides means and opportunity to
minimize such risks. We propose that every authoritarian government,
every oppressive institution, and even every corrupt corporation, be
subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy or
freedom of information laws, not even of quadrennial elections, but of
something far stronger: the individual consciences of the people within
them. On 05.01.2007, at 02:16, Wikileaks wrote: Hello Wikileaks I
just read about your project in the Federation of American Scientists'
"Secrecy News" newsletter and was wondering if you could answer a few
questions. If so, here goes: 1. Who is behind the Wikileaks
project (although that is probably a very dumb question for an
anonymizing service for leaked data). 2. Is this a project backed by
Wikipedia? 3. Will Wikileaks vet leaked documents to ascertain a
genuine public interest defence in hosting the leaked documents or
whether the leak is purely malicious, such as a business plan leaked by
a disgruntled employee? If so, who will do the vetting and decide on
its "genuineness"? If you'd rather talk, my number is below. If you
don't know New Scientist, it is a science and technology newsweekly (50
years old last November) and we have 2 million print and online
readers, half of them in the US. My deadline is noon Friday GMT.
best regards xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Chief
Technology Correspondent | New Scientist | London |
r===================== DISCLAIMER ====================== This message
is intended only for the use of the person(s) (\"Intended Recipient\")
to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is
privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination,
distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its
content by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute
a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as
possible. Reed Business Information Ltd. and its subsidiary companies
Tel: +44 (0)20 8652 3500
=======================================================
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Hello
xxxxxxxxxxxx, here are some notes/answers we've prepared. We can do an
interview to if you have time, over the weekend if need be. Kind
Regards, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is WikiLeaks.org? Why "wikify" leaking?
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
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
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 facing criminal charges, 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. Public
citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks
of embarrassment through openness and honesty 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
cost 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 democratization is greater than ever. WikiLeaks is a tool
to satisfy that need. WikiLeaksreduces the risk to potential leakers
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. Instead of a couple of
academic specialists, WikiLeaks will provide a forum for the entire
global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility,
plausibility, veracity and falsifiability. They will be 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. And so on. WikiLeaks may become the most
powerful "intelligence agency" on earth -- an intelligence agency of
the people. It will be an open source, democratic intelligence agency.
But it will be far more principled, and far less parochial than any
governmental intelligence agency; consequently, it will be more
accurate, and more relevant. It will have no commercial or national
interests at heart; its only interests will be truth and freedom of
information. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence
agencies, WikiLeaks will rely upon the power of overt fact to inform
citizens about the truths of their world. WikiLeaks will be the outlet
for every government official, every bureaucrat, every corporate
worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information which 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 a forum for the ethical
defection of unaccountable and abusive power to the people. How will
WikiLeaks operate? To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like
wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical
knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and
untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their
credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context
and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read
and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material
and context. The political relevance of documents and their
verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands. WikiLeaks will
also incorporate advanced cryptographic technologies for anonymity and
untraceability. Those who provide leaked information may face severe
risks, whether of political repercussions, legal sanctions or physical
violence. Accordingly, extremely sophisticated mathematical and
cryptographic techniques will be used to secure privacy, anonymity and
untraceability. For the technically minded, WikiLeaks integrates
technologies including modified versions of FreeNet, , PGP and software
of our own design. WikiLeaks will be deployed in a way that makes it
impervious to political and legal attacks. In this sense it is
uncensorable. Who is behind WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks was founded by
Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists,
from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Our advisory
board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expatriate
intelligence analyst and cryptographers. There are currently 22 people
directly involved in the project and counting. What is your
relationship to wikipedia? WikiLeaks has no formal relationship to
wikipedia. However both employ the same wiki interface and technology.
Both share the same radically democratic philosophy that allowing
anyone to be an author or editor leads to a vast and accurate
WikiLeaks will be to leaks. Wikipedia provides a positive example on
which WikiLeaks is based. The success of wikipedia in providing
accurate and up-to-date information has been stunning and surprising to
many. Wikipedia shows that the collective wisdom of an informed
community of users may produce massive volumes of accurate knowledge in
a rapid, democratic and transparent manner. WikiLeaks aims to harness
this phenomenon to provide fast and accurate dissemination,
verification, analysis, interpretation and explanation of leaked
documents, for the benefit of people all around the world. What is
WikiLeakss present stage of development? WikiLeaks has developed a
prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still
many demands required before we have the scale required for a full
public deployment. We require additional funding, the support of
further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media
representative bodies (as consumers of leaks), language
regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators. We
have received over 1.1 million documents so far. We plan to numerically
eclipse the content of the English wikipedia with leaked documents.
Anyone interested in helping us out with any of the above should
contact us by email at [insert address here]. When will WikiLeaks go
live? We cannot yet give an exact date. We estimate February or March
2007. Couldnt leaking involve invasions of privacy? Couldnt mass
leaking of documents be irresponsible? Arent some leaks deliberately
false and misleading? Providing a forum for freely posting information
involves the potential for abuse, but measures can be taken to minimize
any potential harm. The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a
worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinize
and discuss leaked documents. Concerns about privacy, irresponsibility
and false information also arise with wikipedia. On wikipedia,
irresponsible posting or editing of material, or posting of false
material, can be reversed by other users, and the results have been
extremely satisfying and reassuring. There is no reason to expect any
different from WikiLeaks. Indeed, as discovered with wikipedia to the
surprise of many, the collective wisdom of an informed community of
users may provide rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and
analysis. Furthermore, misleading leaks and misinformation are already
well placed in the mainstream media, as recent history shows, an
obvious example being the lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of
misinformation will find themselves undone by WikiLeaks, equipped as it
is to scrutinize leaked documents in a way that no mainstream media
outlet is capable of. An analogus example is this excellent unweaving
of the British government's politically motivated additions to an
intelligence dossier on Iraq. The dossier was cited by Colin Powell in
his address to the United Nations the same month to justify the pending
US invasion of Iraq. In any case, our overarching goal is to provide a
forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice. All policy
will be formulated with this goal in mind. Is WikiLeaks concerned about
any legal consequences? Our roots are in dissident communities and our
focus is on non-western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe
a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave
error in western administrations. However, we are prepared,
structurally and technically, to deal with all legal attacks. We design
the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are
run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in
very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software
censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work
in other jurisdictions. Is leaking ethical? We favour, and uphold,
ethical behavior in all circumstances. Every person is the ultimate
arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where there is a lack of
freedom and injustice is enshrined in law, there is a place for
principled civil disobedience. Where the simple act of distributing
information may embarrass a regime or expose crime, we recognize a
right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing normally
involves major personal risk. Just like whistleblower protection laws
in some jurisdictions, WikiLeaks provides means and opportunity to
minimize such risks. We propose that every authoritarian government,
every oppressive institution, and even every corrupt corporation, be
subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy or
freedom of information laws, not even of quadrennial elections, but of
something far stronger: the individual consciences of the people within
them. On 05.01.2007, at 02:07, Wikileaks wrote: Deadline not till
next week...xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Reporter Science Magazine
202 326 6446
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] For
ongoing ``social proof'' reasons, we need someone to google out 20-30
news/blog articles with their urls and titles which will then be
incorporated into the home page. Anyone?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:26:45 -0800 From: To: [This is a

backbone.] Here are some, see attached file. You probably don't want
to include all of these, as some are quite vacuous. []
http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wlurls.txt
From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:03:34 +1100 To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] the
wl.org front page + blurb is seeing many, many quotes and reposts
(including of the logo). I understand it was done quickly and needs
thoughtful polishing to have the needed psychological effect. e.g
there is an obvious missing word. Please send in comments /
modification suggestions. A lot of people are
requoting/posting/blogging based on this first page only, and using
the ease of ignorance to promote their agenda. Most attacks are along
the lines of "will be used to leak forgeries etc", which is robustly
answered in the faq. This should probably go into the front page.
Thoughts?
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Can
someone volunteer or find someone trustworthy who will to help update
/ maintain the current website? In addition we need to rapidly
transition the current holding website into a regular (i.e not
wikileak style) mediawiki website, so it's easy for all of us to add
and correct content, but also for psychological reasons. Is someone
happy to run that on a reliable server they control?
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] >
Interesting question. MySociety recently released >
http://www.commentonthis.com/ - they're a nice bunch, I'm sure they'd >
share the code with us if we asked. That's great! Although it needs
careful thought about how to integrate it with mediawiki. I wonder
if they'd help integrate it?
To: From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 18:46:09 +1100 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Some
people may be wondering about the unusual names on this list. There
are xxxxxxxxxxxxx people on this list. Everyone is personally known
and trusted by, or is, the founding group. How much will YOU pledge
to WL (in matched pledging or otherwise) for its next six months of
activities? We can succeed at a slower / scale limited way with under
$50,000 / year & volunteers, but it is our goal to raise pledges of
$5m by July. Smaller pledges can be used in ways that will generate
larger ones, so there's an amplification on any early contribution.
We've noticed at least one blog saying that we appear to be a
stalking horse for Soros. This is excellent and part of our strategy
for division and support. When the media blitz hits next week, we'd
like to make concurrent initial requests to many funding bodies.
Additionally, we have a Davos leak with personal contact details for
all attendees. We need people to: 1) investigate the contraints
various funding bodies place on organizational structures
2) write draft letters of
initial approach 3) work on a
statement of principals / constitution which
will satisfy donors,
confuse and disarm opponents,
yet at the same time will prevent the WL public organizations
from being enslaved by the
source of their beads. 4) we want
to incorporate in multiple jurisdictions -- where?
how will these bodies
relate to each other? 5) the
people who worked on the prototype are now
completely diverted by
managing the politics. That's
ok for a couple of weeks, but we can not expect
the political demands to
return to the level they were
before. They need help in both worlds.
6) More work on the FAQ, keeping
up the face of inspiration
without antagonism Solidarity! WL
To: From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 19:29:23 +1100 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Fwd from
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: We should be consistent in our use and invention of
language. A word or a phrase extracts meaning from its resonance with
other usages and our experiences. For instance in the FAQ we
sometimes use the phrase "ethical leaking". Should we always use this
phrase? 'leak' by itself carries a negative. 'ethical' a strong
positive. 'ethical leaking' a positive. But it does isolate 'leaks'
as being non-ethical unless we stick 'ethical' on them. Can we make a
movement from this phrase and others? 'The ethical leaking movement'.
Powerful. Can it survive the heat of our vision? We must find our
own 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' s -- blessings and sanctifications that
even our most diseased and demonic opponents will find themselves
chanting to each other in the night. We need a phrases for 'leak
facilitator', 'mail drop volunteer', 'ethical leaker', 'wl server
operator' etc, etc.
To: From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 06:09:19 -0500 [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] For the
coming media storm next week, we need time zone local telephone
contact points, with number (but not name) listed on WL.ORG. In
interviews, this just means explaining/interpreting the "official
position" that's written up on wl.org. You always represent yourself
-- someone who's an interested party "on the advisory board", but do
not speak for wl as a whole. If they ask what about X and it's not on
WL.ORG etc, then give can your personal opinion if you think it's
helpful, but re-iterate that you're speaking for yourself. This
delegation carries some risks (to wl), but we are in a romance with
journalists hearts; if our voices sweet are not easily reachable on
the phone when their desire and deadlines peek, others voices, less
honeyed but always, always available will replace them. [Names below
deleted by Cryptome.] xxxxxx, are you happy to handle the UK? xxxxxx
/ xxxxxx -- central europe? xxxxxx / xxxxxx us west coast? jya, is
there someway we can obscure you for the east coast? xxxxxx/xxxxxx are
you happy to handle Tiawan/SEA and Mandarin language interviews? Lim,
do you speak cantonese too? xxxxxx -- africa? xxxxxx / xxxxxx /
xxxxxx -- oz/english asia? xxxxxx, are you still busy with your
conference?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:58:04 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Announcing a $5 million fund-raising
goal by July will kill this effort. It makes WL appear to be a Wall
Street scam. This amount could not be needed so soon except for
suspect purposes. Soros will kick you out of the office with such
over-reaching. Foundations are flooded with big talkers making big
requests flaunting famous names and promising spectacular results.
I'd say the same about the alleged 1.1 million documents ready for
leaking. Way too many to be believable without evidence. I don't
believe the number. So far, one document, of highly suspect
provenance. Instead, explain what funding needs there are and present
a schedule for their need, avoid generalities and lump sums. Explain
how the funds will be managed and protected against fraud and theft.
Instead, operate on a shoe-string for a few months, best, for a couple
of years, establish WL bonafides by publishing a credible batch of
documents for testing public feedback and criticism. Show how to
handle the heat of doubt and condemnation. Use that to support fund-
raising. At moment there is no reason to believe WL can deliver on its
promises. Big talk no action, the skeptics say. BTW, the biggest
crooks brag overmuch of how ethical their operations are. Avoid
ethical promises, period, they've been used too often to fleece
victims. Demonstrate sustained ethical behavior, don't preach/peddle
it.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:21:34 -0800 To: From: John Young <jya[a
lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Addendum: The CIA would be the most
likely $5M funder. Soros is suspected of being a conduit for black
money to dissident groups racketeering for such payola. Now it may be
that that is the intention of WL because its behavior so far fits the
pattern. If fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much
higher funding goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies
are awash in funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the
Congressional spigot wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies, spy
contractors, other nation's spy agencies, whole countries, are falling
over themselves to tap into this bountiful flood. But competition is
fierce, and accusations of deception are raging even as the fleecers
work in concert. Chinese dissidents -- a brand name among many -- are
already reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US and from
the PRC, along with others in the former Soviets, in Africa and South
America, inside the US, UK and Europe, in the Middle East and the
Koreas, who know how to double-cross ditzy-rich Dads and Moms. In
solidarity to fuck em all.
From: Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:26:00 -0500 To: [This is a restricted
Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Advice
noted. We'll polish up our sheers for cutting fleeces golden. >
Addendum: > > The CIA would be the most likely $5M funder. Soros is
suspected > of being a conduit for black money to dissident groups
racketeering > for such payola. > > Now it may be that that is the
intention of WL because its behavior > so far fits the pattern. > > If
fleecing the CIA is the purpose, I urge setting a much higher > funding
goal, in the $100M range and up. The US intel agencies > are awash in
funds they cannot spend fast enough to keep the > Congressional spigot
wide open. Academics, dissidents, companies, > spy contractors, other
nation's spy agencies, whole countries, are > falling over themselves
to tap into this bountiful flood. But > competition > is fierce, and
accusations of deception are raging even as the > fleecers work in
concert. > > Chinese dissidents -- a brand name among many -- are
already > reaping huge benefits from covert funding from the US and
from > the PRC, along with others in the former Soviets, in Africa and
> South America, inside the US, UK and Europe, in the Middle East > and
the Koreas, who know how to double-cross ditzy-rich Dads > and Moms. >
> In solidarity to fuck em all. >
[This message was not distributed by the closed wikileaks list.] To:
Wikileaks <wikileaks[a t]wikileaks.org> From: John Young <jya[a
t]pipeline.com> Subject: Re: [WL] Funding / who is on this list. Date:
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:47:00 -0500 Cryptome is publishing the
contents of this list, and how I was induced to serve as US person for
registration. Wikileaks is a fraud: [This is a restricted internal
with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.] Fuck your cute
hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old
shit, working for the enemy.
From: Subject: Re: [WL] Funding / who is on this list. Date: Sun, 7
Jan 2007 12:36:29 -0500 To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> Heh. John,
please do not do that. If you're wondering about the WL, the list has
grown and there were enough accidental wl mentions [e.g in the somali
document and a cc] that not mentioning it became of little additional
obscurity especially since you're receiving the mail. No one has
bothered to change the warning which after all doesn't really hurt.
Even if you think we are CIA stooges, you can't treat everyone on the
list that way.

Wikileaks Internal E-Mail, Pt. 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wikileaks Internal E-Mail, Pt. 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

editor[a t]waynemadsenreport.com, funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.

net From: Julien Assange <me[a

John Young agreed to do so by encrypted message, undecryptable by JY.

[A decrypted PGP message.] Dear J, The difficulties that confront a

To: jya[a t]pipeline.com From: Subject: Welcome to list

[Names and addresses, headers and redundant messages trimmed by

From: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 20:28:09 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:01:30 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:44:37 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:31:08 +1100 To: [This is a

From: To: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:17:33 -0600 [This is a

From: To: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:55:25 -0800 [This is a

From: To: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:00:22 -0800 [This is a

To: From: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:27:40 +1100 [This is a

From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:43:24 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:07:01 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:44:10 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:05:34 +1100 To: [This is a

From: To: Date: [This is a restricted internal development

From: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:21:22 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:35:54 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:50:40 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:43:53 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:32:09 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:57:37 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:46:25 +1100 To: [This is a

To: From: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:43:01 +1100 [This is a

From: Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:58:25 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:15:45 +1100 To: [This is a

To: From: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:32:45 +1100 [This is a

To: From: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:33:21 +1100 [This is a

From: To: Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 08:24:05 -0600 [This is a

From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:44:15 +1100 To: [This is a

To: From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:00:06 +1100 [This is a

To: From: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:49:10 +1100 [This is a

From: Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:45:09 +1100 To: [This is a

To: From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:46:20 +1100 [This is a

To: From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:16:11 +1100 [This is a

From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:08:44 +1100 To: [This is a

To: From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:32:55 +1100 [This is a

From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:08:08 +1100 To: [This is a

From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:08:21 +1100 To: [This is a

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:09:29 +1100 From: To: [This is a

From: To: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:31:47 -0600 [This is a

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 06:01:09 +1100 From: To: [This is a

From: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:07:56 -0600 To: [This is a

From: Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:15:17 +1100 To: [This is a

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:38:03 +1100 From: To: [This is a

From: Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:52:14 +1100 To: [This is a

From: To: Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:01:01 -0600 [This is a

Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:16:24 -0800 To: funtimesahead[a

From: To: Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:36:01 -0600 [This is a

Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:08:36 +0000 From: To: [This is a

Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:13:37 +0000 From: To: [This is a

Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:18:29 +0000 From: To: [This is a

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 03:31:57 -0800 From: To: [This is a

Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:26:45 -0800 From: To: [This is a

You might also like