WikiLeaks releases mystery file (31 Aug 2011)

[Ed Jewett]

WikiLeaks releases mystery file
31 Aug 2011

WikiLeaks released a mysterious encrypted file on Wednesday after telling its followers on Twitter to stand by for "an important announcement." WikiLeaks did not identify the contents of the 571 megabyte file and it could not be opened without a decryption key, which the anti-secrecy website said would be released "at the appropriate moment." In July of last year, WikiLeaks posted what it called an "insurance file," which was also encrypted.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...SShfQVdAzQ via http://www.legitgov.org/

[Peter Lemkin]

I don't know what is in the 'mystery file', but I do know that there has been internecine warfare within WL [or those who once were in it]. There is also an organized campaign of disinformation and destabilization coming from the US intelligence agencies and government against WL and Assange and his co-workers. Here, below is a part of the internecine warfare, from WL's perspective. If you go to the original, there are hyperlinks.

In the light of the recent press statements by Openleaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg we decided to have a look at some older coverage, in particular his Spiegel interview from the 27th of September 2010. It appeared soon after he had left Wikileaks, and it was also translated into English.
The first question of the Spiegel reporters concerned the state of the Wikileaks IT infrastructure. Asked why the Wikileaks e mail system was down, Domscheit-Berg answered:
"Es gibt technische Probleme und niemanden, der sich darum kümmert. WikiLeaks steckt in einer Phase, in der sich das Projekt verändern müsste. Wir sind in den letzten Monaten wahnsinnig schnell gewachsen und müssten uns dringend in allen Bereichen professionalisieren und transparenter werden. Diese Entwicklung wird intern blockiert."
"There are technical problems and no one to take care of them. WikiLeaks is stuck in a phase in which the project has to change itself. We grew insanely fast in recent months and we urgently need to become more professional and transparent in all areas. This development is being blocked internally."
He does not mention that it was him and an associate who took the servers offline, as he now admitted. Rather, he makes it appear that this was a general structural problem.
Another very interesting fact is that he admits to having coordinated the finances of Wikileaks. Thus, he acknowledges that he knew about the funds available via the Wau Holland Foundation. This makes it very difficult to comprehend, why he would have paid servers privately, as he has now claimed.
Most revealing is, however, the following passage about pending submissions:
"Und durch unsere gestiegene Bekanntheit ist im letzten halben Jahr noch einmal sehr viel Material hinzugekommen, das dringend bearbeitet und publiziert werden müsste."
"And through our rising recognition in the last six months, we have again received a lot of material that urgently needs to be processed and published."
This statement is in stark contrast to a recent interview with Austrian public TV station ORF:
"Alles Interessante an dem Material war schon längst veröffentlicht, etwa das CIA Red Cell Memorandum, die Loveparade-Geschichte und einige andere Einzelfälle. Es hat sich darunter nichts mehr befunden, was den Aufwand und das Risiko einer Veröffentlichung gerechtfertigt hätten."
"All of the interesting material had been published a long time ago, for instance the CIA Red Cell Memorandum, the Loveparade matter, and some other isolated things. Amongst it, there was nothing that would have justified the time [needed for the editorial efforts] or the risk it posed."
With regard to the ownership of the pending Wikileaks submissions and the servers, he says:
"Aus meiner Sicht sollten Material und alle Spendengelder bei WikiLeaks bleiben, denn beides ist explizit diesem Projekt zugeflossen."
"It is my view that material and money from donors should remain at WikiLeaks, because both were intended explicitly for this project."
At some point, he must have changed his mind about the matter. By February, he gave another interview to German weekly magazine Stern, stating that he would only return the data if Wikileaks could guarantee security. He criticizes amongst others that they did not have an encrypted website, and gives as a reason that Assange was obviously too busy exploiting the present releases.
At around the same time, Wikileaks' German solicitor Johannes Eisenberg sent Domscheit-Berg a letter asking for the material to be returned.
Overall, it has become clear that Domscheit-Berg changed his story. A year ago, he talked about a number of important submissions which were left aside, and uses this as a reason to criticize Wikileaks, whereas he now claims that the submissions were not worth the effort, to justify that he destroyed them.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2206

[Peter Lemkin]

WIKILEAKS EDITORIAL - Guardian disclosure
Wed Aug 31 23:44:00 2011 GMT
A Guardian journalist has negligently disclosed top secret WikiLeaks' decryption passwords to hundreds of thousands of unredacted unpublished US diplomatic cables.
Knowledge of the Guardian disclosure has spread privately over several months but reached critical mass last week. The unpublished WikiLeaks' material includes over 100,000 classified unredacted cables that were being analyzed, in parts, by over 50 media and human rights organizations from around the world.
For the past month WikiLeaks has been in the unenviable position of not being able to comment on what has happened, since to do so would be to draw attention to the decryption passwords in the Guardian book. Now that the connection has been made public by others we can explain what happened and what we intend to do.
WikiLeaks has commenced pre-litigation action against the Guardian and an individual in Germany who was distributing the Guardian passwords for personal gain.
Over the past nine months, WikiLeaks has been carefully releasing US diplomatic cables according to a carefully laid out plan to stimulate profound changes. A number of human rights groups, including Amnesty International, believe that the co-ordinated release of the cables contributed to triggering the Arab Spring. By forming partnerships with over 90 other media and human rights organizations WikiLeaks has been laying the ground for positive political change all over the world.
The WikiLeaks method involves a sophisticated procedure of packaging leaked US diplomatic cables up into country groups or themes, such as 'resources corruption', and providing it to those organizations that agreed to do the most research in exchange for time-limited exclusivity. As part of the WikiLeaks agreement, these groups, using their local knowledge, remove the names of persons reporting unjust acts to US embassies, and feed the results back to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks then publishes, simultaneously with its partners, the underlying cables together with the politically explosive revelations. This way publications that are too frightened to publish the cables have the proof they need, and the public can check to make sure the claims are accurate.
Over time WikiLeaks has been building up, and publishing, the complete Cablegate "library"the most significant political document ever published. The mammoth task of reading and lightly redacting what amounts to 3,000 volumes or 284 million words of global political history is shared by WikiLeaks and its partners. That careful work has been compromised as a result of the recklessness of the Guardian.
Revolutions and reforms are in danger of being lost as the unpublished cables spread to intelligence contractors and governments before the public. The Arab Spring would not have have started in the manner it did if the Tunisian government of Ben Ali had copies of those WikiLeaks releases which helped to take down his government. Similarly, it is possible that the torturing Egyptian internal security chief, SuleimanWashington's proposed replacement for Mubarakwould now be the acting ruler of Egypt, had he acquired copies of the cables that exposed his methods prior to their publication.
Indeed, it is one of the indelible stains on Hillary Clinton that she personally set course to forewarn dozens of corrupt leaders, including Hosni Mubarak, about some of the most powerful details of WikiLeaks' revelations to come.
Every day that the corrupt leadership of a country or organization knows of a pending WikiLeaks disclosure is a day spent planning how to crush revolution and reform.
Guardian investigations editor, David Leigh, recklessly, and without gaining our approval, knowingly disclosed the decryption passwords in a book published by the Guardian. Leigh states the book was rushed forward to be written in three weeksthe rights were then sold to Hollywood.
The following extract is from the Guardian book:
----
Leigh tried his best not to fall out with this Australian impresario, who was prone to criticise what he called the "snaky Brits". Instead, Leigh used his ever-shifting demands as a negotiating lever. "You want us to postpone the Iraq logs' publication so you can get some TV," he said. [WikiLeaks: We required more time for redactions and to complete its three Iraq war documentaries commissioned through the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. The documentaries were syndicated through Channel 4 (UK) and al Jazeera English and Arabic] "We could refuse, and simply go ahead with publication as planned. If you want us to do something for you, then you've got to do something for us as well." He asked Assange to stop procrastinating, and hand over the biggest trove of all: the cables. Assange said, "I could give you half of them, covering the first 50% of the period."
Leigh refused. All or nothing, he said. "What happens if you end up in an orange jump-suit en route to Guantánamo before you can release the full files?" In return he would give Assange a promise to keep the cables secure, and not to publish them until the time came. Assange had always been vague about timing: he generally indicated, however, that October would be a suitable date. He believed the US army's charges against the imprisoned soldier Bradley Manning would have crystallised by then, and publication could not make his fate any worse. He also said, echoing Leigh's gallows humour: "I'm going to need to be safe in Cuba first!" Eventually, Assange capitulated. Late at night, after a two-hour debate, he started the process on one of his little netbooks that would enable Leigh to download the entire tranche of cables. The Guardian journalist had to set up the PGP encryption system on his laptop at home across the other side of London. Then he could feed in a password. Assange wrote down on a scrap of paper:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"That's the password," he said. "But you have to add one extra word when you type it in. You have to put in the word XXXXXXX' before the word XXXXXX' [WikiLeaks: so if the paper were seized, the password would not work without Leigh's co-operation] Can you remember that?" "I can remember that." Leigh set off home, and successfully installed the PGP software.
----
The Guardian disclosure is a violation of the confidentiality agreement between WikiLeaks and Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, signed July 2, 2010. David Leigh is also Alan Rusbridger's brother in law, which has caused other Guardian journalists to claim that David Leigh has been unfairly protected from the fallout. It is not the first time the WikiLeaks security agreement has been violated by the Guardian.
WikiLeaks severed future projects with the Guardian in December last year after it was discovered that the Guardian was engaged in a conspiracy to publish the cables without the knowledge of WikiLeaks, seriously compromising the security of people in the United States and an alleged source who was in pre-trial detention. Leigh, without any basis, and in a flagrant violation of journalistic ethics, named Bradley Manning as the Cablegate source in his book. David Leigh secretly passed the entire archive to Bill Keller of the New York Times, in September 2011, or before, knowingly destroying WikiLeaks plans to publish instead with the Washington Post & McClatchy.
David Leigh and the Guardian have subsequently and repeatedly violated WikiLeaks security conditions, including our requirements that the unpublished cables be kept safe from state intelligence services by keeping them only on computers not connected to the internet. Ian Katz, Deputy Editor of the Guardian admitted in December 2010 meeting that this condition was not being followed by the Guardian.
PJ Crowley, State Department spokesman on the cables issue earlier this year, told AP on the 30th of August, 2011 that "any autocratic security service worth its salt" would probably already have the complete unredacted archive.
Two weeks ago, when it was discovered that information about the Leigh book had spread so much that it was about to be published in the German weekly Freitag, WikiLeaks took emergency action, asking the editor not allude to the Leigh book, and tasked its lawyers to demand those maliciously spreading its details about the Leigh book stop.
WikiLeaks advanced its regular publication schedule, to get as much of the material as possible into the hands of journalists and human rights lawyers who need it. WikiLeaks and its partners were scheduled to have published most of the Cablegate material by November 29, 2011 one year since the first publication. Over the past week, we have published over 130,000 cables, mostly unclassified. The cables have lead to hundreds of important news stories around the world. All were unclassified with the exception of the Australian, Swedish collections, and a few others, which were scheduled by our partners.
WikiLeaks has also been in contact with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty at a senior level. We contacted the US embassy in London and then the State Department in Washington on 25 August to see if their informant notification program, instituted last year, was complete, and if not, to take such steps as would be helpful. Only after repeated attempts through high level channels and 36 hours after our first contact, did the State Department, although it had been made aware of the issue, respond. Cliff Johnson (a legal advisor at the Department of State) spoke to Julian Assange for 75 minutes, but the State Department decided not to meet in person to receive further information, which could not, at that stage, be safely transmitted over the telephone.
UPDATE:
Wikileaks published this statement on their website, along with facsimiles of three documents, a legal letter to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the memorandum of understanding with Alan Rusbridger and another sample memorandum.

[Peter Lemkin]

The transparency movement has many vocal proponents. A recent event in the Wikileaks sagas proves that those who could be in the most effective position to strengthen it are only content to give it lip service.
Take Daniel Domscheit-Berg, for example. A former Wikileaks staffer, Domscheit-Berg had a very public and bitter falling-out with Wikileaks editor Julian Assange in September 2010 and has since cultivated the public role of pragmatist pitted against Assange's flinty eccentric in a battle of archetypes.
Soon after his dismissal, Domscheit-Berg made it a personal signature to tirelessly use every publicity opportunity to disparage his former employer. He announced he would be starting a new rival whistleblower website Openleaks a supposedly sensible and measured alternative to his previous gig. A gossip-heavy and factually inconsistent book followed Inside Wikileaks: My Time With Julian Assange At The World's Most Dangerous Website, filled with the mundane details of Assange's eating habits and dress sense. Additional details on Domscheit-Berg's predilection for unappetizing quasi-meat dishes and general whining helped feed the internet meme machine for several months.
Nonetheless, some campaigners for transparency held their tongues amidst all this acrimony, consoling each other with Domscheit-Berg's promise to launch Openleaks, which in theory could advance the cause for transparency as a complement to Wikileaks, which is perennially defending itself from legal and political attacks.
There was hope that the launch of Openleaks would relegate the emphasis on the interpersonal sniping to a mere footnote of history and provide a valuable addition to the effort to increase transparency amongst powerful organisations.
Well, there goes that hope.
What has transpired over the last week has vindicated those who see Domscheit-Berg's behavior as self-serving rather than merely bullish for the sake of a cause. On August 21 it was reported in German weekly Der Spiegel that Domscheit-Berg had deleted a cache of unpublished material that was originally leaked to Wikileaks.
How did this material end up in Domscheit-Berg's sole custody?
The answer to that question wavered between two poles of competing narratives in the preceding months thanks to Domscheit-Berg's inconsistent public statements. It is now finally confirmed that he had in fact helped himself to it after leaving the organisation in September 2010. (There is still a war of words over whether he was fired or quit voluntarily).
The most recent chapter of this scandal unfolded when the influential German hacker collective, Chaos Computer Club (CCC) announced it would revoke Domscheit-Berg's membership on the basis of his furtive use of the CCC's reputation as a free vehicle to lend Openleaks some easy credibility.
Domscheit-Berg had invited hackers assembled at this year's annual CCC Summer Camp to conduct a strength-test' asking programming wizards to aim their best shot at the Openleaks website in order to test its technical robustness and security a key selling point for an online whistleblower platform thereby obtaining a CCC seal of approval'.
CCC board member Andy Müller-Maguhn, in an interview with Der Spiegel on August 15, revealed that the real underlying reason for Domscheit-Berg's ejection from the CCC was based on his refusal to return the stolen documents to Wikileaks. Müller-Maguhn had been acting as mediator between Domscheit-Berg and Wikileaks to resolve the dispute. Evidently, this mediation process failed spectacularly. According to Müller-Maguhn, Assange confirmed that the plunder included "about 3,000 submissions, some of them with several hundred documents [per submission]."
There was some initial confusion as to whether there was actually a computer hard drive in Domscheit-Berg's possession, or whether he only held the encryption passphrases (keys') required to translate the data from encrypted code into plain-text that anyone can read. Holger Stark, reporter for Der Spiegel, reported via Twitter on 19 August that "The only keys 4 the unreleased Wikileaks docs are in the hands of DDB and his partner [Anke Domscheit-Berg]. Why do they destroy it?"
The difference may appear inconsequential at first glance, but as those who are versed in digital cryptography would advise, merely holding the keys to a file does not guarantee complete control of access to that file. Keys can be copied; if it were only the keys that Domscheit-Berg possessed, there was still a chance that other copies would be floating around somewhere.
The next day, Stark clarified this detail for his Twitter audience: "There is no doubt that it exists JUST ONE VERSION of the archive of unreleased Wikileaks material. I spoke to Daniel Domscheit-Berg and he confirmed that."
On August 21, Der Spiegel went to press with confirmation that the unthinkable had happened Domscheit-Berg hadn't destroyed the keys; he'd deleted the entire chest. Over 3,500 files, some of which contained details of the U.S Government's "no-fly list" (which many U.S dissidents and civil liberties campaigners would be keen to see) as well as information on 20-odd right-wing extremist groups (pertinent material after the Anders Brevik massacre). Domscheit-Berg has not confirmed what was included in the material. In a series of tweets on the evening of August 21 (Australian Eastern time), Wikileaks confirmed the destroyed material not only included the aforementioned documents, but also "US intercept arrangements for over a hundred internet companies", "more than 60,000 emails from the NPD [the far-right German National Democratic Party]", and "five gigabytes from the Bank of America."
Tellingly, Domscheit-Berg had told Stern magazine earlier this year that the Bank of America material was outdated and "completely unspectacular" (as reported by Reuters in February). So unspectacular, according to his tastes, that it didn't warrant anyone else seeing it.
Clues had also been dropped previously about the juncture from when these leaked documents originated. In February 2011, Domscheit-Berg told Wired that "the hijacked leaks only include those submitted since the time the system came back online in July following an outage, and the time it went down permanently." Wikileaks, in a public statement issued via Twitter, alleges that the destroyed material originates from submissions received between January 2010 and August 2010.
So what exactly would motivate someone who sees himself as a freedom of information activist to actively suppress information by deleting it forever? Despite the vast amounts of criticism and opposition that Julian Assange has invoked whilst pursuing his work, some justified and some unjustified, to date there is no known instance of Assange permanently destroying information that has been submitted to him.
Destroying documents is hardly good PR for a transparency activist.
This deletion of data is not the only act of sabotage instigated by Domscheit-Berg against Wikileaks. At various intervals since September 2010 Domscheit-Berg had stated that that he had immobilized Wikileaks' online submission platform dismantling the site's secure page where documents can be anonymously submitted because he deemed Assange irresponsible and reckless with the material he handled. Why? "Children shouldn't play with guns," Domscheit-Berg admonished in his book.
In flashes of Machiavellian irony (or sheer idiocy), Domscheit-Berg would go on to blame Wikileaks for its own incapacitation:
"[Domscheit-Berg] said he and his group intend to return the material unused and unpublished, as soon as WikiLeaks can demonstrate the technical ability to keep the data and its sources safe. But WikiLeaks' internal technical architecture has reverted to a primitive state, with little sign of progress in the months since the group's departure, Domscheit-Berg said."
So Domscheit-Berg crippled Wikileaks' ability to receive new submissions securely, then castigated it for not demonstrating the ability to repair and maintain its own technical infrastructure quickly enough. Yet this twisted logic was lost even on experienced journalists, who either willfully ignored it or didn't bother doing a Google search as illustrated by Ravi Somaiya's February 6 article in the New York Times:
In private, Mr. Assange has told reporters that the spate of defections shut down the complex computer systems WikiLeaks uses to process new information and make it hard for governments and corporations to trace its source. At a January news conference in London, he said that trouble with the site's "internal mechanisms" had rendered it no longer open "for public business." He said the site would continue to accept material in other forms, like computer disks.
The omission that it was Domscheit-Berg's responsibility for this shut down' is striking in its negligibility. Even more peculiar was Domscheit-Berg's changing story as recently as August 10, he declared to der Freitag: "No, I didn't take any documents from Wikileaks."
Then there's Domscheit-Berg's promise of no sabotage done to Der Spiegel:
SPIEGEL: With a part of the WikiLeaks team now leaving, do your informants need to be concerned about what will happen with the material they submitted?
Schmitt: It is my view that material and money from donors should remain at WikiLeaks, because both were intended explicitly for this project. There are other opinions internally with our technical people, for example. No matter what, though, we will ensure that a clean transition happens.
Similarly in an interview with CNN, Domscheit-Berg had the temerity to cite Wikileaks' structural problem' as the reason for leaving the organization but failed to mention that this structural problem was due in no small part to his vandalism. Domscheit-Berg's ever-changing stories should have been recognized as a red flag signaling dubiousness, however latent or undefined. But a mainstream press already irked by Assange's persona was glad to feed off any criticism they could get the scoop on particularly from a former insider.
Assuming that Assange's statements on what the deleted material contained is true, the only fact we can be assured of is that at least some of it deserved to be published. The only responsible assumption to make as a starting point is that whoever leaked those documents to Wikileaks did so with the hope that reform would be enacted somewhere. As Crikey pointed out in June, over 50 media partners around the world are currently in collaboration with Wikileaks a set-up that ensures source documents are reviewed by journalists with diverse expertise and specific cultural, political and economic knowledge. It can hardly be described as a bunch of children playing with guns.
This collaboration framework would surely have been optimal enough to work on the stolen material, should Domscheit-Berg have deigned to return it. Should any of the material have been found to be of no ethical, political or historical significance' (to quote Wikileaks' own guidelines), at least we would know that diligence was applied in the first place, instead of the careless discarding of data that has taken place in a fit of disgruntlement.
All that that remains now is the disquieting knowledge that there was unpublished material that ranged in significance from a local community level to a global level, that has now been permanently suppressed by a self-proclaimed freedom of information activist. This logically aligns Domscheit-Berg with the powerful, corrupt and secretive organisations he supposedly seeks to make transparent. The irony is positively macabre. It is further cemented with Openleaks' statement on its website:
"From the whistleblower's point of view, there is no difference between the submission of valid material that is not released, and censorship."
Also unsettling clue was Domscheit-Berg's choice of language: that of the nonchalant bureaucrat, advising the original whistleblowers who possibly risked their careers if not their lives to simply re-submit' the documents, as if they were misplaced faxes sent to an accountant.
Wouldn't it be remarkably odd to see a mainstream press reporter announce that he or she had leaked material in their possession, only to proclaim that it would never see the light of day, on the basis of a mere personal whim? Who is the final arbiter of the truth? In light of these developments, who in their right mind would entrust Openleaks with sensitive information, knowing that it can be destroyed over a petty vexation?
The recent official statements by Wikileaks give no easy explanation for Domscheit-Berg's motives either, aside from anecdotal and circumstantial reports that hint at a darkly complex network of cronyism. Characteristically of Assange, the Wikileaks statement is peppered with references to alphabet-soup agencies. Domscheit-Berg need not be married to a Microsoft executive-version of Mata Hari to make his destruction of Wikileaks data any less bizarre.
Fickle words, bruised ego and reckless behavior aside, none of Domscheit-Berg's exploits over the last 12 months give any assurances that a new horizon is opening up for institutional transparency. The real casualties in this story are the whistleblowers, whose risks were ultimately undertaken in vain.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2177

[Peter Lemkin]

It finally happened. An old cablegate file was detected on the internet, and it could be decrypted with a password that was published by a Guardian journalist. The file is not in an obvious location, and it may be doubted that anyone would have ever found it, along with the matching password, had it not been for Der Freitag publishing an article on the matter, which was then followed up by several other news outlets. Der Freitag is a media partner of Openleaks and has strong ties with the Guardian.
WL Central had guessed the source of the password early on but decided not to publish.
Wikileaks responded with the following statement:
"Statement on the betrayal of WikiLeaks passwords by the Guardian.
GMT Wed Aug 31 22:27:48 2011 GMT
A Guardian journalist has, in a previously undetected act of gross negligence or malice, and in violation a signed security agreement with the Guardian's editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger, disclosed top secret decryption passwords to the entire, unredacted, WikiLeaks Cablegate archive. We have already spoken to the State Department and commenced pre-litigation action. We will issue a formal statement in due course.
WIKILEAKS"
For our previous coverage of the topic please see this link.
Article:
http://wlcentral.org/node/2208

[Peter Lemkin]

[URL="http://wikileaks.org/US-espionage-investigation-against.html"]US espionage investigation against WikiLeaks: PATRIOT Act order unsealed
Wednesday 24th August 2011[/URL]

Further proof has emerged of the United States secret Grand Jury investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Further information has been demanded on the organization and its founder for the US courts, this time under the PATRIOT Act. The Grand Jury has been meeting in Alexandria, Washington DC trying to work up an espionage case against the organization's founder Julian Assange. The latest information demanded is anything held by WikiLeaks DNS host, Dynadot in California, regarding wikileaks.org, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks have just received a copy of the recently unsealed court Order from the United States, signed by a US magistrate judge on the 4th of January 2011. Using the terms of the PATRIOT Act the Order was issued to Dynadot, the domain registrars for wikileaks.org, for all information they hold on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and wikileaks.org.

The Order demands Dynadot handover the following information for the time period November 1st 2009 to present, within three days of the date of the Order:

1. Subscriber names, user names, screen names, or other identities; 2. mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, e-mail addresses, and other contact information; 3. connection records, or record of session times and durations; 4. length of service (including start date) and typos of service utilized; 5. telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity; including any temporarily assigned network address; and 6. means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.

Also:

1. records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account 2. non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s), such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses. 3. Correspondence and notes of records related to the account

WikiLeaks do not know what, if any, information Dynodot provided the US courts with. This demand follows a subpoena earlier this year to Twitter for the information it holds on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and some of his associates. For further information please read the full Dynadot court Order here.

[Magda Hassan]

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6642965/...2011-09-31

[Ed Jewett]

Cryptome has decrypted the "z.gpg" file from the Wikileaks Archive using the passphrase obtained from several sources:

ACollectionOfDiplomaticHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#
The decrypted file is "z.7z," 368MB, which unzips to "cables.csv," about 1.7GB in size, dated 4/12/2010.

Download the z.gpg file and decrypt, or the decrypted "z.7z" file will be offered online or mailed on a DVD by request to cryptome[at]earthlink.net with the subject: z7z. For the DVD provide a postal address.

http://cryptome.org/

[Charles Drago]

It puts one in mind of a pre-championship fight weigh-in altercation.

[Peter Lemkin]

Releases & #WikiLeaks
Submitted by -s on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 21:34
News China Iraq Israel Palestine Sweden United States



This is a "WikiLeaks News Update", a daily news update of stories that are obviously related to WikiLeaks and also freedom of information, transparency, cybersecurity, and freedom of expression.

Cablegate2 release
WikiLeaks' full Cablegate archive became available online, primarily due to the negligent publishing of its password in a book authored by Guardian journalist David Leigh.

Now the 251.287 US Embassy cables are also available through WikiLeaks and in searchable format at cables.mrkva.eu.
The whistleblowing organization urges the public to download and mirror the Cablegate2 archive and to continue the disclosure of the important information contained in the cables, by helping Al-Jazeera search the documents and sharing information via twitter using the hashtag #wlfind.


WikiLeaks has released a Statement on the circumstances leading to the disclosure of the archive:

…Every day that the corrupt leadership of a country or organization knows of a pending WikiLeaks disclosure is a day spent planning how to crush revolution and reform.

Guardian investigations editor, David Leigh, recklessly, and without gaining our approval, knowingly disclosed the decryption passwords in a book published by the Guardian. Leigh states the book was rushed forward to be written in three weeksthe rights were then sold to Hollywood.'…, the Statement reads.

…WikiLeaks severed future projects with the Guardian in December last year after it was discovered that the Guardian was engaged in a conspiracy to publish the cables without the knowledge of WikiLeaks, seriously compromising the security of our people in the United States and an alleged source who was in pre-trial detention. Leigh, without any basis, and in a flagrant violation of journalistic ethics, named Bradley Manning as the Cablegate source in his book.'…

Niger Parry, an independent journalist, has also published a careful analysis of the events leading to the release of Cablegate in its entirety.

On this incident, Glenn Greenwald commented, in a piece titled 'Facts and myths in the WikiLeaks/Guardian saga':
"The accidental release of these unredacted cables will receive far more attention and more outrage than the extreme, deliberate wrongdoing these cables expose."

Various important stories that WikiLeaks and #wlfind participants have uncovered in the past few days have, however, been gaining a certain amount of exposure. Below are a few examples.

WikiLeaks disclosures have prompted Iraq to investigate the massacre of an Iraqi family by U.S. troops in 2006
A cable that was recently published by WikiLeaks, consisting of a letter written by Philip Alston addressed to Condoleeza Rice, details the brutal killing of a family of 10 people, which included 2 children and 3 infants, by U.S. troops and its subsequent coverup.
The document, the AP reports, is said by some officials to be reason enough for Iraq to force the American military to leave instead of signing a deal allowing troops to stay beyond a year-end departure deadline.'.

United Nations peacekeepers in Ivory Coast traded food for sexual acts with underage girls
According to a cable from January 2010, a random poll of 10 underage girls in Toulepleu by aid group Save The Children U.K. in 2009 found that eight performed sexual acts for Benin peacekeepers on a regular basis in exchange for food or lodging.

IDF uses drones to assassinate Gaza militants
An unmanned aircraft armed with missiles was used by the IDF to conduct an attack on a group of Hamas members who were standing next to a mosque in Gaza, leading to the death of 16 Palestinians who were inside the mosque as the attack occurred, a cable detailing a meeting between IDF Advocate-General Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit and U.S. Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham reveals.

120 Chinese Children Disappeared in Stockholm
The disappearance of 120 Chinese children from Swedish immigration centers within a period of 18 months, in 2006 reported in a U.S. diplomatic cable from the same year - is believed to have been managed by organized traffickers residing in several European countries.

More information on WikiLeaks latest releases is currently being compiled in the @wlfind twitter account and unveiled under the #wlfind hashtag.