Example of Wikileaks work

This video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF2miwIWOE4&playnext=1&list=PL1B4EDF7486CFD128

Video on Julian Assange and Bradley Manning

This video can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g_VOdvqn5I

Article on Wikileaks about its usefulness

Note: this article is by "Buzzle staff and agencies" and can be found at: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/does-wikileaks-empower-the-public-or-simply-create-more-problems.html 

Does WikiLeaks Empower the Public or Simply Create More Problems

WikiLeaks has recently published a massive inventory of top secret U.S. Military documents detailing various aspects of the war in Afghanistan.

With the recent publication by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of classified documents from the U.S. Military and other agencies related to the war in Afghanistan, some are calling into question the value of the organization’s services. There are a few things more sensational in journalism than top secret or classified information being made public without the authorization or complicity of the secretive parties involved. Throughout recent history, such revelations tend to bring down political regimes and expose conspiracies, the depths of which the general public can only begin to understand.

As WikiLeaks has begun publishing secret documents related to the war in Afghanistan, it seems appropriate to ponder exactly how much value this type of service offers the public at large. Certainly, there is value to having a media arm that is capable of and willing to publish secret documentation without fear of consequences from the powers that be. That alone is certainly worth something, especially in instances where corruption and injustice are exposed to the eyes of the world. The value begins to get a little skewed, however, when top secret documents are published that can have an adverse impact on individuals with no knowledge of the documents themselves. That would seem a likely outcome of this most recent "WikiLeak", although in fairness to the organization, they seem to go to great lengths to vet the information they receive in order to prevent such instances, if they are in fact avoidable.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is an appropriately shadowy figure in his own right, although to his credit he has been available to make statements in support of his company’s mission and their actions, even when they find themselves under scrutiny from the most powerful governments and intelligence organizations in the world. And among some of the information in the newly leaked Afghan documents, there seems to be growing support for claims that Pakistani military and intelligence officials have been actively supporting the Taliban even while U.S. efforts are ongoing to defeat them. This would seem to be very interesting information for the American public, but it’s hard to quantify exactly what such information means.

To further illustrate the complexity of the issues surrounding WikiLeaks, the site’s About Us page reads, in part, "We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people." And while that statement in and of itself seems wholly true, it still creates problems when the necessary transparency and scrutiny is provided by a third party who ultimately decides just how transparent it wants to be with the information it has received. It’s also difficult to determine context when only certain documents are "leaked", when others may exist that refute or question the "facts" in the leaked documents. Are the leaked documents that most relevant to the issues at hand, or are they simply drafts or documents that have contributed to reaching a much different conclusion, not discussed in the documents themselves?

When documents are leaked that reveal new information or provide clarification on a specific situation or event, it’s difficult to place a qualitative value on the information without a complete picture of "all" of the documentation involved. Suffice to say that we’ll probably never receive that level of transparency in any government, nor would that necessarily be a good thing.

And when only a portion of the picture of any situation is revealed, are we running the risk of demonizing the wrong parties or of perhaps adding more misunderstanding and corruption to a situation where it would have otherwise been avoided? These are difficult questions that must be considered and answered as much as possible each time WikiLeaks posts new information on its site. The intent of the site appears to be in the right place, but the likelihood of maintaining a positive impact when releasing otherwise secret information seems extremely remote, at best.

Once armed with any new and revealing information, the general public is still helpless, for the most part, to effect any immediate change on its own. For that to occur, a new election cycle must occur (where democratic governments are involved), and by then the primary players in any government cover-up or conspiracy will have had plenty of time to cover their asses and create new stories to explain the exposed information. At the end of the day, it’s difficult to leverage any information from WikiLeaks as citizens, but I suppose it’s possible to use the leaked information to prod legislators and other leaders to act appropriately in the face of the danger that they themselves might one day be exposed.

Article on Wikileaks about some of their incriminating information on other websites

Note: this article is by "Brad McCarty" and can be found at: http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/04/the-greater-problem-of-wikileaks-when-innocent-sites-become-the-victims/

The greater problem of Wikileaks: When innocent sites become the victims

Over the past few weeks, it’s almost impossible to open a browser without seeing something about Wikileaks. The site, embroiled in controversy, has brought more than its share of problems to other businesses, as well. At this point, Amazon, PayPal and others have all hadGovernment pressure to cease services to the site. The question that comes up is what happens if and/or when your own site becomes involved with a situation such as the one surrouding Wikileaks.

The Amazon Experience

Amazon has found itself in two situations, recently, wherein it had to make difficult business decisions. In the first case, its self-publishing format for the Kindle was playing host to a book that served as an instruction manual for keeping a pedophile safe. After public outrage, Amazon first chose to continue hosting the book, stating that it didn’t condone censorship:

Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.

The site did eventually pull the book, perhaps succumbing to the public understanding that Amazon as a retailer was making a choice to profit from its sale. Further, censorship is a word that Amazon representatives did not seem to fully understand. As the publisher, Amazon has the sole ability to decline to publish a work; a situation that happens in publishing houses daily.

With Wikileaks, Amazon’s AWS played host to the information that was being disseminated. Government pressure was laid onto Amazon to pull the content, and Amazon eventually did. However, a statement from Amazon paints a different light onto the scenario than what we as the public would have believed:

There have been reports that a government inquiry prompted us not to serve WikiLeaks any longer. That is inaccurate…AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them.

The obvious question is whether Amazon should adopt a pre-screening policy for its hosting. While it absolutely would add to the work for Amazon, it might prevent future issues. Simply put, Amazon likely did get clued to the potential Wikileaks issues but the problem could have been averted by a screening method.

The Trials of Twitter

A couple of years ago, the US Military released  a reportdetailing the ways in which terrorist organizations could use Twitter and other forms of onlinecommunication to plan attacks. While we’re not at the point of calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization, recent government pressure against other sites leads us to believe that Twittercould be next. Given that the Wikileaks account is still active on Twitter, it wouldn’t be surprising to see Twitter have to answer those questions as a U.S.-based business.

We’ve reached out to Twitter for comment, but as of yet have not received a response. However, given past circumstances surrounding activities deemed illegal in the United States, Twitter would likely point to its terms of service. This is a simple rule that nearly any site needs to think of in advance when hosting user-submitted content. Those terms of service are a life-saver, as long as they’re enforced.

PayPal Problems

As was the case with Amazon, PayPal has a distinctly different problem on its hands. In being the donation source for Wikileaks, not only was PayPal enabling the site to continue financially, but also PayPal was benefitting monetarily via its surcharges. While PayPal has now cut off Wikileaks’ access to its financial donations through the site, there will likely still be questions to be answered by PayPal from the U.S. government agencies that are now involved.

Who’s Next?

At first, the only sites which had to worry about the Wikileaks ordeal were those hosting content in affected countries. However, as the case continues to grow, more sites are becoming part of the grand scheme, even if unwittingly. At this point, any site which hosts, links to or otherwise makes available the Wikileaks content runs the risk of government involvement — especially those based in the United States.

So who’s next? It’s a question to which the answer remains to be seen. Moving forward, it is simply advisable that site owners are more cognizant of what is being hosted on their servers. This situation has shown us, at a minimum, that the release of information holds the capability of causing problems for everyone, even if a site had no intention of becoming involved.

Wikileaks - The Movie

Note: This article is by "The Age" and can be found at: http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/spielberg-to-call-action-on-wikileaks-film-20110303-1bgd1.html

 

Spielberg to call action on WikiLeaks film

March 4, 2011

HOLLYWOOD film mogul Steven Spielberg has bought the rights to the story of the WikiLeaks saga, The Guardian newspaper reported.

The Guardian was one of five media outlets used by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to publicise the thousands of classified US documents relating to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and diplomatic cables.

Reportedly conceived as an investigative thriller, the film will be backed by DreamWorks - the studio founded in 1994 by Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The book charts Julian Assange's life from his itinerant childhood to the creation of the WikiLeaks website in 2006.

It also provides the inside story of Assange's partnership with The Guardian and the release of more than 250,000 secret diplomatic cables.

Buy one give one away

"Buy one, give it away", is a landmark policy of shoe brand "TOMS", who, whenever a pair of shoes are bought, donate another pair of shoes to charity. 

Lisa Jones Christensen, a professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at The University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School, said this in the Daily Telegraph newspaper in October 2010:

In a typical "buy one, get one free" arrangement, the benefit accrues only to the buyer, she says. "With the TOMS model, you generate something for someone else while also advancing your own fashion."

When customers purchase shoes, they "can let TOMS finish out the final mile of their own good intentions," says Christensen. Then, every time a customer slips on a pair of Classics, Cordones, or Stitchouts, he gets a reminder of the contribution he's made to the world.

"It is a model where the consumer can continue to reap satisfaction as the shoe gets worn. Most other consumption causes a decrease in satisfaction, as products become obsolete and head towards landfill."

As a result, the giveaways, though costly, increase customer satisfaction and deepen loyalty. TOMS's social mission – providing shoes to the needy – isn't a tender nicety. It's integral to the competitive logic of the company.

This, in effect, sums up the idea of "Buy one, give one away"; that the consumer is drawn into buying the shoes because of what they are doing to help charity and that TOMS shoes are not necessarily carrying out this policy out of good will, but instead to play on the minds of the Western Societies to gain customers, even if this forces them to lose profit.

I chose this slide because I really am amazed at the the way that the Western Societies are now prepared to buy products by certain brands not because of their quality, but instead to help people in poverty.

  

Dave - the TV channel

I am sure that every one of you, in some sort of manic depression, have gone mad and flicked the channel over to Dave; a television channel where programmes are all basically old episodes of other channel's programmes, such as ancient copies of BBC One's "Have I Got News For You" or BBC two's "Mock the Week." Also, Top Gear is more frequently shown on Dave than any other show (according to me anyway.) And what's more, when Dave do make a programme of their own, it is always some hardly hilarious stand up comedy night that tends to be shown from 10:00 to midnight!
But, perhaps it is a good channel; it acts like a sort of advanced iplayer, if you like. So, if you miss an episode of Top Gear or Dragons Den, as long as you watch Dave about 6 million years later, you can catch it. I am not suggesting that this is the almighty solution to all your television related problems, but it helps out on quite a few of them anyway. Well, even if these reasons do not satisfy you, just remember that it could be worse; you could watching channel Five!