Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Privacy Politics

German Police Raid Homes of Wikileaks.de Domain Owner 430

Posted by timothy
from the don't-you-oppress-me dept.
BountyX writes "First and foremost, wikileaks.org is back up after downtime due to server load; however, the German government wants to keep the site down. According to their twitter page, police have raided the home of Wikileaks.de domain owner Theodor Reppe (PDF) over internet censorship lists that were leaked two weeks ago. What the Australian government's secret ACMA internet censorship blacklist has to do with Germany is a mystery. This case is a prime example of multiple governments collaborating in support of censorship." Reader iter8 provides a link to coverage on Wikileaks itself, which says that police searched Reppe's homes in both Dresden and Jena, and adds: "According to police, the reason for the search was 'distribution of pornographic material' and 'discovery of evidence.' Wikileaks has published censorship lists for Australia, Thailand, Denmark and other countries. Included on the lists are references to sites alleged to contain pornography, including child pornography. Wikileaks has not published any images from the sites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Police Raid Homes of Wikileaks.de Domain Owner

Comments Filter:
  • by Swampash (1131503) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:04AM (#27327201)

    His house was raided by the cops because he was listed as the registrant for the domain wikileaks.de? Is that what passes for probable cause in the Fatherland?

    WTF?

    • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:18AM (#27327303) Journal

      Wow! I think I might actually start making donations to these people - If they're getting this much hassle and attitude of various governments and agencies, they must be doing something right.

      Sure, I'll probably go on a government watch list, but the way things are going we either all already are or soon will be, so why should that be a discouragement?
      • by denzacar (181829) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:28AM (#27327851) Journal

        Sure, I'll probably go on a government watch list, but the way things are going we either all already are or soon will be, so why should that be a discouragement?

        Because the list is probably numbered, graded and color-coded?

        • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @08:11AM (#27328339) Journal

          You mean I'll get bumped up to a higher priority? It's possible. But it's like being arrested for something. Before it happens, you're worried about getting caught for any little thing and possibly getting a record. But once that's actually happened to you and you've been through it, you're no longer afraid of being arrested for its own sake, afraid of being judged or labelled, but only because of estimated consequences which you weigh up for yourself. The emotional 'omg - I'll be accused of something' side of things is gone. This is particularly the case if you were hassled falsely or otherwise don't feel what you did was wrong. Going on a government watch list is the same - there might be different degrees of consequence but once the initial "we might add you to the list" threat is gone, it loses a lot of its power over you. I now accept that I'm probably on a list somewhere (not through actions, but through speaking my mind and membership of a few human rights organizations) and my behaviour has gone from a vague unease that something I might do could make me look suspicious to a feeling of what the Hell, they already said they don't trust me.

          Have you seen these hysterical new posters for the UK police "anti-terrorism" campaign. It's hard to believe that those producing them think they'll have any actual anti-terrorism effect and that it isn't just a deliberate attempt to promote fear and distrust amongst people. Honestly - telling people to inspect their neighbour's rubbish for bomb-making materials? You could not make it up! When "lists" get too pervasive and warnings get so dumb,the concern about being labelled a suspect loses its power to control you because pretty much everyone you know and associate with is in the same boat. At this rate the only people not on the list will be the police themselves, at which point it becomes society vs. authority again and history takes its usual course.

          I'm just waiting for the first "Terrorist Pride" march.
      • by Olotila (919437) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @09:18AM (#27329265)
        I've never donated to any organisation just because they exist and do what they do. Until now. My 10e might not be much, but it sure felt good giving it to Wikileaks.
    • by AHuxley (892839) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:19AM (#27327323) Homepage Journal
      Ernst Uhrlau, President of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) (German CIA) put out a nice press release that might give a hint
      http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/German_spy_chief_threatens_Wikileaks [wikileaks.org]
      Markus "Mischa" Wolf would be proud ;)
      • I have to ask (Score:4, Interesting)

        by aepervius (535155) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:37AM (#27327443)
        I have to ask because i don't know. If some secret document from the CIA was leaked onto wikileaks, how quick and how hard would the CIA ask for a retraction ? Do we know ? Did this happen ?
        • Re:I have to ask (Score:4, Informative)

          by digitalchinky (650880) <dtchky@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @08:43AM (#27328769)

          From a secret 3 letter agency point of view, it's no secret that the US and German governments share a limited amount of intelligence - google abounds with info on it, so you can bet your backside that anything leaked from either of those governments to wikileaks is going to come under scrutiny at some level. Australia is part of the big 5 (UKUSA), so if I were a betting kind of person I would lay good odds that Australia also has one or two agreements in place with Germany as well, thus the raid.

          If the CIA finds any of their secret stuff on wikileaks, what they do about it will depend on the classification and severity of damage that would occur if they did nothing. Has it happened before? I have no idea, but not many people will be talking about it if it did.

          The problem with leaking this particular Australian blacklist is that it will reveal to a few key people exactly how certain things got on that list in the first place. A pretty big heads up if you're at the centre of one of these child porn rings (or other criminal activities that can be deduced from the list)

          Leaking certain types of secret isn't so bad it would seem, but leaking single source secrets, or slipping up with the source or methodology, that might get you a free visit from ASIS and a gun if you live outside the country, or ASIO if you're living locally.

          All of that said, it wasn't me!

      • by furby076 (1461805)
        Gave some extra information, but was biased - heavily - against the BND. I have a hard time believing biased articles because they tend to present facts to help their cause even if it is a blatent distortion of the truth.
    • by aetherworld (970863) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:36AM (#27327431) Homepage

      And his laptop and an external HD were taken. Police in Europe (at least in Germany and here in Austria) are allowed to raid your house when they believe there is imminent danger to the security of the state or other citizens ("Gefahr im Verzug"). They don't need a judge's permission/order for this. If they don't find anything, they can just file a simple 2 page report and be done with it.

      This was used in the case of wikileaks.de - the police didn't read his rights to Mr. Reppe and when he insisted the police add a witness name to the report, they didn't do so.

      Basically it's just spreading fear among the people. The problem is, since the blacklists contain links to child pornography pages, you're not allowed to publish the list, as you would also make links to child pornography publicly available. Which is the whole point of the black list:

      The government could just take down the child porn sites. But instead they create filters and blacklists for those pages as well as other websites that might be against their ideals. You're not allowed to check those lists for any illegitimate censorship because then you would also look at child porn. You're also not allowed to distribute them. Voila! They successfully used peoples hatred agains child pornography to censor anything they want.

      • by knarf (34928) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:00AM (#27327597) Homepage

        Ah, but there is a relatively easy solution to that: don't spread the list itself, instead spread a list of secure hashes (sha256 or something similar) of the blocked domains. If you want to check whether your domain is blocked you run it through a similar hashing algorithm. If the hashes match the domain is on the list (assuming that the hash size has been chosen well so that the chance of collisions is negligible). You could run this whole process in a convenient web page. Add several lists of hashes for known blocklists and you've got yourself an online blacklist checker which the authorities can not (legally) touch. Should it ever come to a court case the actual list(s) can be revealed and the hashes recalculated so as to prove that they are correct.

        • by aetherworld (970863) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:08AM (#27327659) Homepage

          You don't understand. LOOKING at the list is illegal and punishable by up to 15 years of jailtime. The list is classified.

          Worse. Since January 1st, there is a new law which even makes TRYING to acquire the list by ANY means punishable.

          • by knarf (34928)

            Nobody has to look at the list, the hashes can be made programmatically without ever looking at that list. The only time it needs looking at is when you have to prove that the hashes are correct. Assuming that this happens in court the judge will have to find a way to make this possible - it will no longer be your problem that the law says you can not look at the list...

            • by aetherworld (970863) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:30AM (#27327869) Homepage

              Yes it will. Acquiring the list or being in possession of the list is also illegal. Basically, with the new law, even if you don't look at it, you're storing child pornography (most likely for later use, you filthy bastard).

              As i said, it's enough to TRY to acquire the list to get you in jail for as long as the government wants.

              • But you could have someone outside Draconiland make the hash-list. Should be a simple one-time operation.

          • by DiSKiLLeR (17651) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:53AM (#27328099) Homepage Journal

            So by downloading Integard you are breaking the law, because it contains 'the list' ?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

              So by downloading Integard you are breaking the law, because it contains 'the list' ?

              Others have said it before - the future is not George Orwell's "1984," it is Kafka's "The Trial."

        • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @09:23AM (#27329293) Homepage

          That is a very good idea - have the government keep the real list under locks and only distribute an officially sanctioned hash-list.

          However, you make the assumption that the stated reason the list is classified is the actual reason. The government doesn't want you to vet the list, even for a URL you already know. That's the point of censorship; to make information disappear as thoroughly as if it were never there.

      • by rastos1 (601318)

        And his laptop and an external HD were taken.

        That it. I have enough. I'm starting to make backups. Some of them offsite.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by c0p0n (770852)

        Police in Europe (at least in Germany and here in Austria) are allowed to raid your house when they believe there is imminent danger to the security of the state or other citizens ("Gefahr im Verzug"). They don't need a judge's permission/order for this.

        Can't speak for our other euro colleagues, but certainly not in Spain pal.

        • Or in Portugal. They can search your car if they think there suspicions of a crime being committed, but never your house.

      • by asdir (1195869) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:33AM (#27327907)

        Police in Europe (at least in Germany and here in Austria) are allowed to raid your house when they believe there is imminent danger to the security of the state or other citizens ("Gefahr im Verzug"). They don't need a judge's permission/order for this. If they don't find anything, they can just file a simple 2 page report and be done with it.

        This was used in the case of wikileaks.de - the police didn't read his rights to Mr. Reppe and when he insisted the police add a witness name to the report, they didn't do so.

        Actually, they did have the permission of a judge, at least according to this: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Hausdurchsuchung-bei-Inhaber-der-Domain-wikileaks-de-Update--/meldung/135147 [heise.de]
        Although you are right that police can enter the domain without judges under certain circumstances, evidence might be forfeit if they did it for the wrong reasons. It is not as easy as you depict it, even if it would apply to our case here (which it does not).
        I too think that the German police has too much power (especially warrants like these are a bit fishy at times, not to mention copyrights, demonstration rights, etc), but we are still a democratic state with a halfway decent judicial system.

        • You're right in that they had the permission of a judge. However, as you can read in your linked article, this is a recent update. The information wasn't available when I wrote my post.

      • Freenet's [freenetproject.org] time is almost here.

        • by Nursie (632944)

          I'm not sure it is.

          I will fight censorship wherever possible, I think the creation fo secret blocklists is despicable and open to abuse (which means they definitely are already and will continue to be abused).

          BUT, where Freenet is concerned, I'm sorry, but I'm just not willing to give over any resources whatsoever to the storage and propagation of child porn.

          Freenet's a nice idea, but I'm not participating until I can control what's on my node. And I know that this is fundamentally against the design and pr

      • by mcgrew (92797)

        The government could just take down the child porn sites. But instead they create filters and blacklists for those pages as well as other websites that might be against their ideals.

        Here in Springfield, the cops take a dumpster, weld it shut, put a fake camera on top and place it near dope houses [illinoistimes.com]. It's a stupid idea, but we're all cartoon characters here anyway - what do you expect from Police Chief Ralph Wiggum? [illinoistimes.com]

        The linked newspaper story mentions that the dumpster in question is on (no shit) Enterprise Str

    • Is this "probable cause" thing required for a search warrant in Germany? Or are you trying to apply US law to a different country?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:43AM (#27327997)

      The raid is politically motivated. Ursula von der Leyen (Federal Minister for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth) is on a crusade against child pornography on the internet. She's fast-tracking all sorts of network blocking efforts, from voluntary agreements and contracts between ISPs and the BKA (Germany's FBI) to law initiatives which force all ISPs to block access to an unpublished list of web sites. She presented child pornography to reporters in an attempt to explain and emphasize the need for these measures. People, companies and organizations who have criticized these efforts have been smeared and had their motivations questioned. The organization of ISPs expects that these filters are only the spear head for more censorship obligations and a way to establish the infrastructure with as little opposition as possible.

      It should be noted that German law does not unconditionally forbid use of evidence which has been gathered in an illegal way, e.g. in an illegal raid. The right against unlawful search and seizure is weighed against the seriousness of the crime proven by the evidence.

  • by AHuxley (892839) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:05AM (#27327207) Homepage Journal
    The BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst ~ foreign new service) ie German CIA are still upset over its secret agents getting exposed in a black flag operation in Kosovo.
    T-Systems (Deutsche Telekom) was exposed revealing over two dozen secret IP address ranges used by the BND.
    The email of a top BND official might have also been listed.
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bundesnachrichtendienst&fulltext=Search [wikileaks.org] should give slashdot readers some idea as to why Germany is so active around wikileaks.
    • by jeti (105266) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:32AM (#27327413) Homepage

      But none of these issues were mentioned during the search. The search protocol names "distribution of porn" (AFAIK not a crime) as the reason. It's fairly obvious that the reason for the search are the leaked filter lists of various countries. The home of a German blogger linking to the lists on WikiLeaks has already been searched. So has the home of a person maintaining a website linking to the blog post.
      Several German ministers are keen on introducing mandatory DNS black lists in Germany. It's currently a hot topic.

      Btw, the search was warrantless, citing "Gefahr im Verzug" (an immedeate danger).

      • >>>The home of a German blogger linking to the lists on WikiLeaks has already been searched. So has the home of a person maintaining a website linking to the blog post.

        Who needs the former Soviet Union or DDR as mortal enemies, when you can have the same "joy" right there at home? Domestic enemies.

    • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:48AM (#27327501)

      I didn't realise German secret services were involved in that sort of thing.

      That and this article certainly shines a whole new light on German politics for me. It seems hypocritical that they're not willing to perform combat operations in Afghanistan because of fears this will make people link it to it's Nazi past in being seen as an oppressive force yet meanwhile, back home, their security services are, well, acting as an oppressive force?

      It sounds like Germany's political elite are suffering an identity crisis - do they accept they've moved on (which they have) and that they can stop worrying about how people will view them and actually do something useful in Afghanistan or do they keep living under that cloud of fear of what people think of them and their past, in which case, they need to stop doing shit like this because this sort of thing links them to their past much more strongly than actually doing their fair share in Afghanistan would.

      They can't have it both ways, either do something useful in Afghanistan and stop caring what others think or stop doing this kind of shit to oppress your citizens back home.

      • by m.ducharme (1082683) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:35AM (#27327927)

        You seem to be under the impression that military intervention in Afghanistan is actually "useful". I agree with some of the aims of the Afghan war -- toppling a theocratic dictatorship, liberating women from oppression, maybe even hunting down those responsible for 9/11 (maybe) -- but the fact is, we're not accomplishing those goals there. The Afghan people have been kicking the ass of world powers for decades now, and if they don't want you there, you can't succeed there. Maybe the Germans recognise this.

        • by Xest (935314) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @08:36AM (#27328657)

          Military intervention absolutely is useful, the issue is that it's not being backed up by the improvements to peoples lives through engineering projects and so forth that must go with it.

          Part the issue in Afghanistan, particularly in the South is that as soon troops clear an area and move on to clear the next the Taliban are moving back in and destroying any projects created to help the people or preventing any new projects being started.

          More combat troops are required to keep ground held so that the other, longer term changes can be made to improve things like providing reliable road networks, power sources, fresh water and so on.

          So we do need more combat troops for sure, it's just that that's not all we need - we need to back it up with real changes to make people's lives better. My comments regarding Germany's politicians using the excuse of the past to avoid combat operations is also not based on speculation but fact, as we have had on the news here in the UK German politicians stating this as the very reason they are not interested in combat so it does seem to be a very real feeling that they don't want to get involved because they're afraid of how people might see them rather than because they don't think it'll help.

          If Germany didn't feel troops would help then there's little reason for them to be there at all. But also the idea that the Afghan people don't want us there seems false, documentary after documentary from countless impartial sources shows that most Afghans want peace above anything else, but as a secondary objective would love to have peace without the Taliban being the ones imposing it - they would much rather it comes from us. The people do want us there, they just want us to do the job properly and it's that that we're not doing. A lot of current schemes seem to be focussed on actually using the Afghan people who want us there to fight with us - I remember reading a very recent article on the BBC about Afghan militia that were fighting against the Taliban.

          It's not like the soviet occupation or the 19th century British occupation where the majority of the people didn't want what we were imposing, your average Afghan is on our side this time round and that's the fundamental difference and why it's wrong to make a direct comparison to past invasions. In the 19th century the British were there to impose colonial rule, in the 80s, the Russians were there to bolster an unpopular communist government, neither had the support of the general population.

          It's also worth pointing out that further evidence as to us being wanted there is the fact that Afghanistan is nowhere as messy as Iraq - the only people attacking us and the civilian population are the Taliban as opposed to the various tribes and religious sects fighting each other which would undoubtedly be the case (as it was in Iraq) if the Afghan people weren't aligned in what they want. A lot of people say we're failing in Afghanistan but really, the quality of life across large parts of the country has increased massively and the kind of death tolls we see in Afghanistan are absolutely minimal compared to Iraq. The real problem is that we're stalled and breaking away from that requires more troops, more investment, and more effort to work with the people (rather than accidently killing them all the damn time). The real danger is if we don't break away from that, because then we certainly will see decline.

          A suggested increase of the Afghan army to 200,000 troops, another 17,000 troops from the US are going to be a good help, even if it only means we can stem the flow of Taliban from Pakistan by defending Afghanistans borders better.

        • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashd[ ]org ['ot.' in gap]> on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @01:50PM (#27333407)

          Well, my uncle is the head of the union of Afghanis in Germany. And according to him, it went like this:

          There was an evil dictator king, that ruled Afghanistan.
          Then the Taliban removed him, which brought much joy to most Afghanis.
          The Taliban then became just as evil. But mostly only to non-believers. Which is not such a big problem in Afghanistan. They are very religious anyway.
          The USA then removed the Taliban, and put the king back in place. People hate him, and this is not going to change.

          So now, instead of only punishing you for not being religious enough, now you can be punished for anything again.

          The problem is, that Afghanistan, and Iraq, are clan hierarchies. They all belong to a clan. People there have a hierarchy of trust.
          You can't create a democracy there. Because they will vote for their clan leaders anyway.

          So what you get is a parliament of all the clan leaders and the now hated king, bashing their heads over the same shit, that they fought each other over for the last centuries.
          It changes nothing. If it does, then it only makes things worse.

          If you want to imagine how Afghanistan works, think of the people and organizational structures of the USA, Russia, France, and some other countries, in one single country. Merged all over the place. They often do not like each other. But you can't separate them by splitting the land. They live right next to each other, and they will not move.

          The only thing you can do is give them education and to actually have the free time to learn stuff. Because only this this gives them the ability to resolve their differences, which they do not have now! (After generations of war, they only know hate and war.) And it removes extremist religious movement like the Taliban too.
          But with the USA, this will not happen. Because the USA -- please do not take offense here -- can't even resolve the religious and educational problems in their own country.

          Oh, and my father was a mujaheddin and son of a city leader btw. If you saw Rambo 3, you saw what his life looked like. Including the bullet-proof Russian helicopters and Stinger rocket launchers.

  • Whack-a-mole (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dracophile (140936) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:09AM (#27327239)
    To us, it looks like a game of whack-a-mole. To the authorities, however, it may look like a hydra, and I worry that they might start acting like it. If they haven't already.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:12AM (#27327257)

    Apparently the German's have something they want to hide. Power to the people.

  • Smart Move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jane_Dozey (759010) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @06:14AM (#27327269)

    Smart move, raiding the home of a person involved in a website devoted to leaking crappy behavior by companies and governments. Even smarter citing wishy-washy reasons for doing so. Real smart.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It doesnt matter.

      Civilians have no rights anyways. That is the great American lie that has been used by the US government, and now all foreign governments, to trick their citizens into believing as if they matter or have any say in anything. It helps calm the rage of the poor and suffering, and gives them hope that one day it might change.

      It never will though.

      All that matters is the ruling class and wealth.

      Its all VIP, and you're not important.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Smart move, raiding the home of a person involved in a website devoted to leaking crappy behavior by companies and governments. Even smarter citing wishy-washy reasons for doing so. Real smart.

      Yeah, I can't wait until this explodes on the mainstream news!

      Oh, wait. It won't, and most people will never hear about it, or about wikileaks.

  • by dohzer (867770)

    What happened to the whole "Conroy: Go after our source and we'll go for you" thing?
    Was their bluff called?

    • What happened to the whole "Conroy: Go after our source and we'll go for you" thing? Was their bluff called?

      Wikileaks Sweden has the protection of Swedish Law. That's why it's hosted there.

      The German authorities must have assumed that an attack in Germany would be more fruitful as Germany has no similar protection of freedom of the press, press sources or whistleblower.

      Might be time to donate to keep them available for countries subjected to heavy censorship and control information. Countries like Australia, UK, Germany etc.etc.

  • Eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by mokus000 (1491841)

    ... however, the German government wants to keep the site down. According to their twitter page, ...

    The German government has a twitter page? ;-)

  • by LaminatorX (410794) <sabotage@praecantator . c om> on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:07AM (#27327647) Homepage

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    Keep up the good work, wikileaks. Somebody's got to.

  • Don't they realise that the national wikileaks sites are mirror sites, the guy has nothing to do with the content!
  • by abigsmurf (919188) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @07:38AM (#27327951)

    If this looks like the first case of international collaboration over a wikileaks takedown, it could be a sign of things to come.

    Wikileaks relies on the fact that, although they piss countries off, they never piss of a lot of countries at once. As such a takedown in one country means little because of its distribution.

    However what would happen if something really major got posted on Wikileaks, something that a government would need to go all out to remove. Say someone posted a list identifying all CIA agents. Would the US government make its allies act to take down wiki leaks presence in each of their country? Would they get ICANN involved and order them to wipe all of its urls off the web? Even block all wikileak IPs at a root server level?

    The second a website like Wikileaks which tries to evade potential countermeasures becomes a nuisence to enough people, there'll be plans (if they don't already exist, it's hard to see intelligence agencies not having thought about it) drawn up about how you'd go about wiping a site from the internet. If this does happen, it'll have dire consequences about the future of the net.

    • by u38cg (607297)
      If the information was that hot, it would be an irrelevance getting it taken down. Say you *did* publish names and addresses of every field agent the CIA has. It doesn't really matter whether you redact the list or not: it is out there and you need to burn your bridges, regardless.
    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @09:36AM (#27329475)

      However what would happen if something really major got posted on Wikileaks, something that a government would need to go all out to remove. Say someone posted a list identifying all CIA agents. Would the US government make its allies act to take down wiki leaks presence in each of their country?

      I am an american and mostly proud to be one.

      however, I lost complete faith in our so-called freedom and democracy.

      I would believe that the US would have anyone killed that it finds to be a PITA. it will look like an accident or something, but the US has shown, time and time again, it will 'do whatever it wants' in the name of censorship and keeping the status quo of those in power.

      we have, in the past, done 'extradition' and we had our own private gulag in cuba. its not at all farfetched to think that, if you piss off the US gov enough, you'll be 'disappeared'.

      in the US they also have 'sneek and peeks' where the gov can enter your house, not tell you about it and gag anyone who was helpful in letting them in.

      don't fuck with the govs. they LIKE their power and if you threaten them they will fight like rabid dogs. it won't be pretty.

      welcome to the new world order ;(

    • by dotancohen (1015143) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @11:13AM (#27330773) Homepage

      Say someone posted a list identifying all CIA agents.

      Actually, this is the first time I've found myself on the other side of the fence. If a list of _human_beings_ were published on wikileaks, I would be all for taking it down. I don't care what those humans have done, do, or may do. Wikileaks should not endanger real living humans.

  • Questions for Conroy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @08:48AM (#27328843)

    Steven Conroy will be appearing on a public forum broadcast live on Australian TV on Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 10:30:00 UTC (9:30pm AEST). Questions for this forum can be posted at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

  • by cagrin (146191) on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @08:56AM (#27328981) Homepage Journal
    There would seem to be a concerted effort across the globe to tighten control of information that gets out to the public. Jay Rockefeller trying [youtube.com] to take down the existing(free) version of the internet is another example. One of the many sources of information out there that the "establishment" is concerned about is the Alex Jones Show [youtube.com] (or infowars.com) Inform yourself, we are coming to an important time in history where those in power(our so-called leaders) are moving to a global government that has been planned for many years(i am not against global government per-say but i AM against one lead by the current corrupt pricks in power). Also something of interest: The Movie - The Obama Deception [obamadeception.net] One other thing: I Want You to get MAD!! [youtube.com]

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...