21 de junio de 2011

Wikileaks. Hay actualizaciones disponibles...

Si te interesa actualizar lo que hasta ahora (no) sabías...
* Una entrevista que me hicieron en Diagonal: “Wikileaks puso en evidencia que no tenemos libertad de prensa.
* ACTUALIZACIONES DISPONIBLES
- Con qué medios de comunicación se relaciona y a qué juega ahora Assange.
- Cómo reprimen aquí y acullá a Anonymous.
- Extractos de una entrevista en inglés y en dos tiempos, realizada por artistas plásticos, a Assange sobre su teoría de matemática cuántica de los fujos de información y el cambio social, sus autores de cabecera, sus movimientos sociales de referencia; el secreto, la censura y la transparencia; las revoluciones árabes, su desilusión con los blogueros y sobre el periodismo como bien público; sus posturas políticas y visiones del mundo... y, de aperitivo, cómo busca financiación subastando en EBay comidas con ocho comensales... uno de ellos será Slovodan Zizeck.
(Gracias a Moriche por alimentar periódicamente sobre esto)
Haga clikc para más actualizaciones.


* Tras el juego global, ahora tableros de juego estatales:
- Juan Gelman sobre WL y Haití: Maquilas, embajadas, USAID y el salario de la miseria. "La “nacionalización” de los documentos de Wikileaks, es decir, su publicación mayoritaria sólo en periódicos de los países concernidos, suele apagar la dimensión de sus revelaciones... En junio del 2009, el Parlamento haitiano aprobó por unanimidad un aumento del salario mínimo: de 1,75 dólar diario a 5 dólares por jornada de ocho horas. Los propietarios de las fábricas de ropa que maquilan para grandes empresas estadounidenses del ramo como Fruit of The Loom, Hane y Levi’s se opusieron al aumento de 62 centavos de dólar por hora que eso entrañaba. Los documentos filtrados por Wikileaks revelan que el rechazo de esas compañías tuvo el apoyo consistente de la Agencia de EE.UU. para el Desarrollo Internacional (Usaid, por sus siglas en inglés) y de la embajada norteamericana."

* Represión global contra el colchón de apoyo, Anonymous, de España a Turquía:
"Lo de la policía española con Anonymous es algo así como el encuentro de dos mundos: los oficiales creen estar lidiando con alguna célula perdida de la ETA o de los talibán, mientras que Anonymous encarna una cultura de intercambio preexistente a la invención de Internet, claro, pero que se ejerce cotidianamente en la presunción de que liberar cualquier información es bueno para las sociedades. La de Anonymous es apenas una idea (diría Sarmiento), y es difícil matar a las ideas. Sin embargo, la detención de 32 personas en Turquía denota una situación un tanto más preocupante en cuanto a la ignorancia de la gran mayoría de los voluntarios que quieren participar: moverse sin dejar rastros por Internet no es sencillo, y requiere de una serie de conocimientos técnicos que Anonymous no ha desarrollado entre sus filas con especial dedicación. Y ser detenido en España, se sabe, no tiene las mismas implicancias que en otros países, como es el caso de Turquía, Egipto, Túnez, Argelia o China.
El caso de Wael Ghonim, ejecutivo de Google que encendió el fósforo de la revuelta convocando a una movilización en Egipto (y que recientemente dejó Google), no tiene nada que ver con Anonymous, está claro, pero sí muestra el impacto del rastreo de direcciones de Internet en la vida cotidiana de los militantes sociales: Ghonim (que no había usado su nombre real en Facebook) fue detenido a las pocas horas de haber convocado a la marcha, estuvo preso una decena de días y salió en libertad gracias a que la “revuelta” triunfó en Egipto, convertido en héroe nacional. Pero no todas las historias terminan así."

* Segunda parte de una entrevista fundamental, tras I. los orígenes y fundamentos del proyecto WL, y II. sus perspectivas de futuro.

I.
There are three types of historical data. Type one is knowledge. Its creation is subsidized, and its maintenance is subsidized by an industry or lobby: things like how to build a pump that pumps water, how to create steel and build other forms of alloys, how to cook, how to remove poisons from food, etc. But because this knowledge is part of everyday industrial processes, there is an economy that keeps such information around and makes use of it. So the work of preserving it is already done. “Historical record,” I don’t mean what happened a hundred years ago, but all that we know, including what happened last week.) This second type of information no longer has an economy behind it. It has already found its way into the historical record through a state of affairs which no longer exists. So it’s just sitting there. It can be slowly rotting away, slowly vanishing. Books go out of print, and the number of copies available decreases. But it is a slow process, because no one is actively trying to destroy this type of information. Type-three information is suppressed before publication or after publication. If type-three information is spread around, there are active attempts to take it out of circulation. Because these first two pillars of our intellectual record either have an economy behind them, or there are no active attempts to destroy them, they do not call to me as loudly. But, this third pillar of information has been denied to all of us throughout the history of the world.


WL AIM: (a) red de conocimiento more intelligent, more layered and more complex... more civilized societies. + (b) insumisión individual: to enable any individual to say no to the most powerful state + infraestructura intelectual colectiva no moldeable: But if that citation mechanism is actually like plasticine, and it is decaying all around us—if oligarchs and billionaires are in there ripping out bits of history, or connections between one part of history and another, because it interferes with their agenda—then the intellectual constructs that we are building up about our civilization are being built on something that is unstable. We are building an intellectual scaffold for civilization out of plasticine. : If we have a leaked, classified document that we release, it has a unique name. And it’s not possible to change the underlying document without changing the name. I think it’s very important—a kind of indexing system for the Tower of Babel, or pure knowledge.


Mimbres intelectuales
- Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr. Mathematics provide a branch of natural philosophy, a system or epistemology for understanding quantum mechanics.What type of actions produce a world that is more just? And what sort of information flows lead to those actions? And then, where do these information flows originate? Once you understand this, you can see it is not just starting somewhere and ending elsewhere, but rather that cause and effect is a loop; here we are today, and we want to create an end state as a result of action. We act and by doing so bring the world into a new state of affairs, which we can consider our new starting point, and so this process of observe, think, act continues. Intento de reilustración habermasiana.
- Hackerism: up until the age of twenty, I was a computer hacker. A los 17 había entrado en el Pentágono, 6 años de procesos legales. An intellectual frontier, and it had very young people in it. It needed young people for the degree of mental adaptation necessary. Because it was an intellectual frontier, we had a range of people who were very bright, though not necessarily formally educated.
- The anarchists’ tradition revolving around figures like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Peter Kropotkin was not something on my horizon. My personal political inspirations were people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, anti-Stalinists in The God That Failed, and US radical traditions all the way up to the Black Panthers.
- Yes, the various liberation movements—in their emotional tone and force of will, not in intellectual content. That tradition really spread into some other things I did later, like the Cypherpunks, in 1993 and ‘94. 1994 was probably the peak of the Cypherpunk micro movement. Cypherpunk is a wordplay on Cyberpunk, the latter was always viewed as nonsense by real computer hackers—we were the living Cyberpunks while others were just talking about it, making artistic pastiche on our reality.
- I wouldn’t say that we came from a libertarian political tradition as much as from a libertarian temperament, with particular individuals who were capable of thinking in abstractions, but wanting to make them real. We had many who were comfortable with higher mathematics, cryptography, engineering or physics who were interested in politics and felt that the relationship between the individual and the state should be changed and that the abuse of power by states needed to be checked, in some manner, by individuals.
-  People like John Young, Eric Huges, and Timothy C. May from California. We were a discussion group like the Vienna school of logical positivism. From our interactions certain ideas and values took form. The fascination for us was simple. It was not just the intellectual challenge of making and breaking these cryptographic codes and connecting people together in novel ways. Rather, our will came from a quite extraordinary notion of power, which was that with some clever mathematics you can, very simply—and this seems complex in abstraction but simple in terms of what computers are capable of—enable any individual to say no to the most powerful state. So if you and I agree on a particular encryption code, and it is mathematically strong, then the forces of every superpower brought to bear on that code still cannot crack it. So a state can desire to do something to an individual, yet it is simply not possible for the state to do it—and in this sense, mathematics and individuals are stronger than superpowers.
- El secreto/censura como oportunidad: it was an epiphany to see the signal of censorship to always be an opportunity, to see that when organizations or governments of various kinds attempt to contain knowledge and suppress it, they are giving you the most important information you need to know: that there is something worth looking at to see if it should be exposed and that censorship expresses weakness, not strength. Y además es ineficiente económicamente, suprimir info int. y ext. Censorship is not only a helpful economic signal; it is always an opportunity, because it reveals a fear of reform. And if an organization is expressing a fear of reform, it is also expressing the fact that it can be reformed
- The basic power relationships of the United States and other Western countries are described by formal fiscal relationships, for example one organization has a contract with another organization, or it has a bank account, or is engaged in a hedge. Those relationships cannot be changed by moderate political shifts. The shift needs to be large enough to turn contracts into paper, or change money flows.
- Revoluciones árabes: desde periodico libanés (luego censurado y boicoteado en la red), filtraciones sobre Ben Ali en Túnez. . So when we saw what was happening in Tunisia, we knew that Egypt was on the borderline, and we saw these initial protests in Egypt as a result of Tunisia...We really tried very hard to get out lots and lots of cables, hundreds of cables, to show the abuses of Mubarak and so on, to give the protestors some additional fuel, but also to remove Western support for Mubarak. Now we also have Libya bordering Egypt. Working with the Telegraph in the UK, we pushed out 480 cables about Libya, revealing many abuses, but also intelligence about how the Libyan regime operated.here was a big one we did for Yemen, which revealed that the president had conspired with the United States to have the US bomb Yemen and say that the Yemeni Air Force did it. With these revolutions we have to be careful not to end up with something like the Orange Revolution, where you had liberal forces, but ones that were being literally paid by the United States and Western Europe. great American companies, Facebook and Twitter, gave the Egyptian people this revolution and liberated Egypt. But the most popular guide for the revolutionaries was a document that spread throughout the soccer clubs in Egypt, which themselves were the most significant revolutionary community groups. If you read this document, you see that on the first page it says to be careful not to use Twitter and Facebook as they are being monitored. On the last page: do not use Twitter or Facebook. Media partners that we’ve worked with—such as Der Spiegel, The New York Times, The Guardian, El Pais, and Le Monde—have already been inclined to produce stories critical of Iran, so they trawled through the cables to find bad stories about Iran and have been publishing them since December at a tremendous pace.
- Media partners: Task Force 373 killed innocents, including one case where they attacked a school and killed seven children and no bona fide targets, and attempted to cover the whole thing up. This discovery became the cover story for Der Spiegel. It became an article in The Guardian. A story was written for The New York Times by national security correspondent Eric Schmitt, and that story was killed. It did not appear in The New York Times.
- La mayor desilusión: los bloggers y wikipedianos: there was nothing by any bloggers, by any Wikipedia-type people, by any leftist intellectuals, by any Arab intellectuals, nothing. What’s going on? Why didn’t anyone spend time on this extraordinary document? My conclusion is twofold. First, to be generous, these groups don’t know how to lead the intellectual debate. They’ve been pacified into being reactive by the presence of the mainstream press. The front page of The New York Times says something and they react to that. Find what is newsworthy and tell the public that it is newsworthy. That’s the generous interpretation, but I think the main factor, however, for those who are not professional writers, and perhaps many who are, is simply that they use their writing to advertise their values as conforming to those of their paper. The aim of most non-professional writers is to take the cheapest possible content that permits them to demonstrate their value of conformity to the widest possible selection of the group that they wish to gain the favor of. They would have to read and understand a thirty-page document, and then write about it in a way that would get this new information into their group and prove that it was important. But The New York Times and other mainstream press vehicles already do that, and they’ve also created the market for a response. One only needs to read a single article in The New York Times and issue a riposte or agreement. The frame and the audience have already been primed.

II.
- Nomadismo: I wasn’t in one place long enough to allow for a proper surveillance operation, which involves getting inside and installing video cameras, monitoring all outgoing electronic signals, and so forth. Such operations take time and planning, so if you’re a resource-constrained activist organization facing the prospect of surveillance by some of the most advanced surveillance agencies, such as the National Security Agency and GCHQ, you only have two methods to resist it: one, changing the location of your headquarters with some frequency, and two, complete geographic isolation.

- Islandia: Modelo inverso de Guantánamo, paraísos fiscales: Instead of having a secrecy haven, we could have an openness haven. And now the world has a new refugee—publishers. The Rick Ross Institute on Destructive Cults had to move its web service to Stockholm in order to evade lawsuits in the United States. Malaysia Today had to move to Singapore and the United States in order to evade government censorship in Malaysia. We originally had some of our service in the United States and they moved to Stockholm. There was legislative flight, or judicial flight, because a lot of these abuses occur within the judicial system, as part of the process. They’d be exiled. Modelo de la tv de Calviño en UK antes de las privadas; Pirenaica antes... you need a belief that freedom of the press is important, an island with a population and economy large and independent enough to not fall prey to the first major pressure it encounters. You need internet connections that are good for publishing and an educated enough workforce for these internet connections. I actually saw Iceland as the perfect island economy for this kind of haven. And with islands, you can often get new legislation going very quickly because the economy is small enough that you don’t have a whole lot of lobbyists keeping it down.We brought in some thirteen different legislative consultants to think about different ways of pulling it all together.

- We say we believe in transparency, merely because this word is a rather convenient and accepted
description for something more complex. I am personally not so fond of that description. Rather, I believe that if we are to build a robust civilization, we need to know what is happening, not necessarily at the very instant it happens, but we need a sophisticated and somewhat comprehensive intellectual record of everything that humanity is about. This is not a matter of simple transparency, but a matter of building up our common intellectual record. And what goes into the intellectual record should actually be everything, unless there is a very good reason for it to not be there, because everything in the world eventually, in one way or another, affects everything else. We need to see power from every angle if we are to understand and shape it. It is the right to know that draws forth the right to speak. And, taken together, we can call these two rights the right to communicate knowledge. There is no need to be too theoretical to show how all this is helpful in practice.

- Circulación libre de información, sin restricciones: If there is an initial communication of knowledge, what right does the state have to use coercive force on second-hand, third-hand, or fourth-hand, or sixth-hand communications of knowledge? Should the state be permitted to do that? I say that it should not. Perhaps, in limited circumstances, the people may grant the state the right to stop the initial communication of knowledge. As for where we draw the line, the postal system does not draw the line—the rights of people to send knowledge through the postal system is absolute. The telephone company does not draw the line. E-mail does not draw the line. The rights to communicate any knowledge through those systems are granted....There is no prior restraint, and there is no view that there should be any prior restraint. After knowledge has been communicated, any attempted restraint is, of course, futile. So, in practice, it is unlimited... we will accept and publish any material that is of diplomatic, political, ethical, or historical significance, which has not been published before, and which is being suppressed—not unpopular material, but material that is being suppressed through classification, through threats of violence, or some other significant force. We promise to publish such material, after it goes through a harm-minimization review. The point of a harm-minimization review is not to prevent material from being published. Rather, it is to either delay publication or remove small parts of a publication for a strictly limited period of time, or until a harmful situation is resolved. It is clear that information should be published if there is no harm in publishing it. It is clear that our harm-minimization process has, to date, been completely successful in its goals.

- Posición política; no temperamento y visión del mundo: all political philosophies are bankrupt, because they’re not created with a full understanding of how human institutions actually behave. A better question would be: Do I have a political temperament? And I do have a political temperament, which is a combination of libertarianism and the importance of understanding. And what emerges from this temperament is holding power to account through action driven by understanding. So, if you have a libertarian temperament, then you’re temperamentally opposed to authoritarian power. And if you have a temperament that is inclined to understanding, then you want to know what power is about. These two things combined drive forth a position, an intellectual and political position that is about understanding power to such a degree that power is not able to express its most abusive aspects.
 
- Visión del mundo: the world is splitting into just two big power systems. The first is the free markets, which can be very big and powerful when you get to financial markets but can also be distorted by some economic interactions. The other is patronage, and patronage networks—these are really what accounts for, splits, promotes or encourages, and distributes all forms of non-market power. This is not a traditional political position as much as it is a view of the world. + Shadow states, which you can see more clearly in newer states in Eastern Europe, such as Bulgaria, where there’s a pantomime at the surface about being a modern EU democracy—not that there really are that many, since the more modern EU democracies also engage in this pantomime.Underneath, there is a patronage network that actually controls who gets justice and the distribution of power and wealth within a country. I see that tendency growing in the United States also. In the United States now, there are two rival systems that control the distribution of power. There is the modern form of what we used to call the military-industrial complex or the intelligence complex, and there is Wall Street. These two rival groups are vying to be the central dispensers of power in the United States. I think they are actually loosely coupled to Hillary on the shadow state side, and Obama on the Wall Street side. Actually, it’s quite interesting in the cases against us in the United States to see this rivalry being expressed in the various actions against us.

- La imparable putinizaciónthe military industrial complex has been broadening and expanding its share of that patronage system aggressively. There are now around 900,000 people in United States that have top-secret security clearances. Ten years ago, the National Security Agency dealt with about sixteen private contractors. The National Security Agency is the biggest spy agency in the United States, and its combined budget is more than that of the FBI and CIA combined, or at least it was around eight years ago when I had the last statistic. Now, it has over 1,000 contractors. Similarly, US involvement in Iraq created around 10,000 different private contractors. So the patronage is now moving into the private sector. It’s less contained than it was. Its tentacles are spreading into all walks of our society and the number of people who are connected through family and business relationships, to that structure, continues to increase. My guess is that something like 30 to 40 percent of the US population is now either directly connected to that structure, or one step removed, through family and business relationships. In the past two years, US tax revenue has decreased nearly 25 percent, while the same time the amount of tax revenue flowing through to that sector in the first year of Obama was around 6% to 7%—the amount of money being soaked up by this sector is increasing. So that shows you that as a patronage network it is increasing in its power, because it’s starting to eat up more of the pie, compared to other groups. That’s a real problem for the United States. There’s a vast shadow state of private companies hooked into the secrecy system, into national security system, and an ever-expanding number of new government bureaucracies as well. It’s very worrying that in the United States, that area is heading towards a Putinization. What Putin and the siloviki did to Russia, that system is doing to United States. And it’s not just the US, but a broader Western patronage network.

- National security, government, and private sector in the United States flourishes from its lack of accountability, from its secrecy. That’s how it’s able to gradually increase its power. But WikiLeaks is holding that power to account. To generate or to encourage the adoption of a position where publishing or revealing information about the national security sector is illegal—or will result in being added to the US Specially Designated Nationals List—is to foster the power and expansion of that national security patronage network at the economic and power expense of the Wall Street network.

- Periodismo como bien público: successful societies have set up mechanisms to fund scientists who produce those very important infinite goods. Perhaps the same could be true for journalism, but the most important journalism is journalism that holds government to account, and holds powerful organizations to account. And there is no significant tradition anywhere in the world of state-funded, aggressive, investigative journalism—this has always been funded by readers or advertisers, which is easy to understand. It is by holding these powerful people to account that the funding gets cut off. So it is not clear how funding such a group would be practical. Maybe one could specify in a constitution that some taxes must go toward this, but then there would need to be a way to administer how this tax, if even collected, is dispensed. That becomes a political function, suffering from all the problems political functions have.

- Personaje público: Por dos razones (1) atraer ataques, dar la cara por los demás y (2) atajo cognitivo y recurso periodístico legítimo: came to understand that the public is right to want to see individual human beings taking responsibility for the actions of an organization, because if the organization fails in some manner, there is someone to blame for its failures. Our memories are good at coupling actions with individuals, and more complex systems with particular individuals that are responsible for those systems. Those cognitive simplifiers are actually necessary for people to remember and understand and predict the behavior of an organization.

- Gran Jurado y procesos futuros: Such a trial would almost certainly take place in Alexandria, Virginia. That’s where they have deliberately set up the grand jury. There’s a reason why the grand jury is in that location: Alexandria, Virginia has the highest density of military contractors in United States. Their families are all around there, and there is a jury selection rule that states that you cannot disqualify a jury member based on the employment of their spouse. The US government chooses to have all its high-profile national security cases there for precisely that reason.

- Reacción de United States, in its reaction to us, behaved no differently than the Soviet Union in the 1960s towards Solzhenitsyn, and in the 1970s towards Sakharov, just in a more modern way... The signal that censorship sends off reveals the fear of reform, and therefore the possibility of reform. In this case, what we see is a clear signal that those structures are not merely hypocritical, but rather that they are threatened in a way that they have not been previously.
- fiscal censorship that was used against us, as a sort of digital McCarthyism, is something that does affect other organizations. It’s rare for it to affect publishing organizations, which is why this case is so remarkable. It’s also rare for it to be used so flagrantly.

- Copyright: The use of copyright to suppress revelations of the abuse of power by companies or governments is, in itself, an abuse of these basic notions that authors, rather than opportunists, should be making the majority of money from the production of books, and those basic notions are what led to the development of copyrights in the first place.

- Plazas y miedo: courage is contagious. It’s a practical reality that, for example, most revolutions start in public squares. Why is that? It’s not like there are more people in a public square. You still have the same number of people in the population, whether they are in their homes, in the street, or in the public square. But in a public square, if there are a few courageous people, everyone else in the public square can see the courage of those individuals and it starts to spread.
- You can either be a victim of history or a participant, I say that because no one wants to be a victim, one must therefore be a participant, and in being a participant, the most important thing to understand is that your behavior affects other people’s behavior, and your courage will inspire actions. On the other hand, a lack of courage will suppress them... people who don’t feel fear are dangerous to themselves and to others. Fear is a very good and important instinct to have. Courage is not the absence of fear. On the contrary, courage is the intellectual mastery of fear.

-Organización periodística y mov. social: WikiLeaks as an organism, as a functional organization, has inspired a movement. There’s an interaction between the organization and this movement, which is fluid, but it is also a distinct, operational group. Independent sub-operations have now sprung up everywhere, and these sub-operations interact with us... there is an inner core and there is widespread support among people, and then there is more organized local support.

- Literatura: Soltzenistyn (Cancer Ward), Tosltoy, Pasternak, Bulgakov... y sus historias más hermosas: dibujos animados rusos de los 70 y 80: These cartoons embody the highest representation of childhood and beauty and innocence and curiosity—all together.

1 comentarios:

VSB dijo...

La conspiranoia sobre Assange, no de la ultraderecha ni de izquierda ultramontana, sino de Daniel Estulin, escritor de bestseller:

http://www.publico.es/culturas/383541/assange-es-un-personaje-tragico-comico-dantesco-y-siniestro

A lo que se añade la alianza WL, Anonymous y LulzSec de autodefensa.

Y la expulsión (¿cuántos van?) de nuevos embajadores latinoamericanos tras filtraciones de WL.

Y los antiguos aliados de WL demostrando que tienen otras fuentes... el rolo que no cesa.

Publicar un comentario