Escola de Redes

Não vejo discussões sobre o caso "Wikileaks" aqui na Escola de Redes. Vamos começar?

Apoio a iniciativa Alexandre. Vamos compartilhar este post com todas as pessoas conectadas à Escola-de-Redes. Quem quer entender as redes sociais deve prestar muita atenção ao que está acontecendo com o #WikiLeaks

Exibições: 1441

Responder esta

Respostas a este tópico

REPORTAJE: ANONYMOUS

Somos Anonymous

Una legión de ciberactivistas se moviliza en la Red. Se hacen llamar Anonymous y dicen luchar por la transparencia, la libertad de expresión y los derechos humanos. No muestran la cara ni tienen líderes. La semana pasada tumbaron las webs oficiales de Túnez, tras la autoinmolación de un joven. Hace un mes, atacaron a las empresas que cortaron el grifo a Wikileaks. Son un movimiento germinal, fuertemente libertario y de contornos confusos. Este es su retrato

JOSEBA ELOLA. El País  16/01/2011

 

Este es su lema: "Somos una legión, no perdonamos, no olvidamos, espéranos. Anonymous". Así es como cierra sus anuncios y comunicados este movimiento sin líderes y sin portavoces, con voz, pero sin cara. O más bien con máscara: la máscara del anarquista revolucionario de V de Vendetta, la novela gráfica de Alan Moore, la que inspiró la película protagonizada por Natalie Portman y Hugo Weaving en 2006. La máscara se ha convertido en símbolo de un movimiento ciberactivista que no se anda con chiquitas. La semana pasada colapsaron las webs oficiales de Túnez , tras la inmolación de un joven de 26 años. El lunes pasado la tomaron con la web del partido irlandés Fine Gael. Atacaron a la SGAE y a los partidos políticos españoles al hilo de la ley antidescargas. Y hace un mes le metieron mano a Visa, Mastercard, PayPal y Amazon, las empresas que dieron la espalda a Wikileaks.

En Anonymous sería imposible que se produjera un infiltrado, aseguran, porque no hay líderes

"La mayor parte de los 'anonymous' no son 'hackers', son usuarios de Internet como cualquiera", dice uno

Todo apunta a que sus miembros consideran más que superada la vieja dialéctica izquierda-derecha

En España, Anonymous cuenta con una base de entre 1000 y 2000 personas, con distinto nivel de compromiso

Anonymous está en su momento. Su gente está motivada. La persecución a Wikileaks era el acicate que necesitaban. No van a parar.

Woolwich, a 45 minutos del centro de Londres, exteriores de la Real Corte de Justicia. Acaba de comparecer Julian Assange, fundador de Wikileaks; es martes 11 de enero y una treintena de activistas se manifiestan en apoyo de su gran inspirador, de su nuevo héroe. Entre ellos, Magnonymous, joven de 22 años que oculta su cara tras la máscara de V de Vendetta. "Nos opondremos a cualquier violación de derechos humanos. Nos opondremos a cualquier ataque del Gobierno. Si esto sigue así, la revolución será la única opción".

Magnonymous es uno más, no es portavoz de nadie, y menos de un movimiento que no quiere portavoces, como se apresuran a decir todos los miembros de Anonymous apenas empiezan a hablar con un periodista. Le pidió el día libre a su jefe para venir a manifestarse a este lejano juzgado, la corte a la que traen casos en que es preciso mantener a la prensa y al público a raya, el lugar donde fueron juzgados los terroristas de los atentados de Londres de 2005. "No somos miembros de ningún grupo político, no somos políticos, somos activistas. Me ofendería si me adscribieran a cualquier corriente política".

Entender el universo Anonymous no es cosa fácil, el fenómeno es el perfecto reflejo del nuevo mundo en el que vivimos, de la nueva sociedad que está naciendo a raíz de la revolución digital. Todo apunta a que sus miembros consideran más que superada la vieja dialéctica izquierda-derecha. Total, qué más da que gobiernen el centro-izquierda o el centro-derecha, todos van a hacer lo mismo, todos están al servicio de los grandes bancos y las grandes empresas, todos van a seguir intentando controlar el chiringuito.

Pues bien, aquí hay una legión de jóvenes que no quieren que se oculte que las cañerías del chiringuito no desaguan bien; no quieren que se oculte que hay varios en el chiringuito que meten la mano en la caja; no quieren que se oculte que a un disidente de la gestión del chiringuito le quisieron tapar la boca. No quieren que se oculte nada. La nueva dialéctica: estar a favor del ocultamiento o de la transparencia. Una de dos.

Este movimiento global, transnacional, transversal, también es difícil de entender porque se gestó en la Red, con las inercias propias de Internet. Es producto del momento, de la interacción, de la necesidad de movilizarse en un mundo cínico, corrupto e injusto. Se ha tejido de forma orgánica, conversación sobre conversación, idea sobre idea, propuesta sobre propuesta. Cualquiera puede formar parte de Anonymous, cualquiera puede entrar cuando quiera y sumarse a la conversación en webs como whyweprotest.net. Entrará en un mundo en el que la gente se va poniendo progresivamente de acuerdo sobre una idea hasta que una suerte de consenso espontáneo indica cuál es el siguiente objetivo, contra quién hay que lanzar el próximo ataque. Algún diario, como The Guardian, ha sostenido que están más coordinados de lo que ellos mismo creen.

No todos los miembros de Anonymous son hackers, no. Los hackers son una gran minoría del colectivo. La mayoría son ciberactivistas que participan en la conversaciónonline y, ocasionalmente, en la protesta en la calle. En torno a unos 1.000 integrantes, según la experta Gabriella Coleman, son los que ponen sus ordenadores al servicio de los ataques contra webs, los que se descargan el dispositivo que permite que su ordenador, cautivo, pueda ser parte de los llamados DDoS, ataques distribuidos de denegación de servicio.

Los DDoS son el arma que los ciberactivistas tienen más a mano. Permiten realizar operaciones que consiguen un considerable eco mediático y que afectan a la imagen de la marca contra la que se dirigen. Consisten en mandar simultáneamente, orquestadamente, miles de peticiones a un servidor para que se colapse. Así ocurrió el pasado 8 de diciembre.

Mastercard decidió cortar en esa fecha el grifo a Wikileaks. Cualquiera que quisiera hacer una donación a la plataforma de Assange no podría hacerlo a través de una tarjeta de esta compañía. La decisión desencadenó el ataque. "Registramos lo que llamamos unsuper heavy traffic ", declara en conversación telefónica Cristina Feliú, portavoz de Mastercard para España y Portugal. "Eso significa que quien entró en nuestra página notó que funcionaba con mayor lentitud". Pero no se produjo, según dice, ningún problema en las operaciones de sus clientes con tarjetas, ni ningún tipo de fraude. "Al día siguiente ya habíamos recuperado el ritmo". Desde Visa declinan hacer comentario alguno y se remiten a los comunicados que afirmaban que los ataques no afectaron a sus operaciones.

Evidentemente, en ese gran colectivo cuya cifra de miembros y simpatizantes es difícil de estimar (los miembros consultados hablan de decenas de miles) hay hackers. Y, de hecho, el FBI está tras sus pasos. Un joven holandés de 16 años fue arrestado poco después de los ataques en su casa, en La Haya. Admitió que había participado en ellos y fue puesto a disposición judicial. "Admitir que participaste no es muy inteligente", explica Philter, estudiante de 19 años y miembro de Anonymous. "El chico tenía 16 años y se asustó, era bastante inexperto, no tomó las suficientes precauciones".

Hablar con la gente de Anonymous no es fácil. Desconfían de los periodistas, de que sus comunicaciones estén intervenidas. No ven con muy buenos ojos a los medios de comunicación tradicionales: desde su punto de vista, ayudan a que se mantenga el statu quo. El hecho de que un diario como EL PAÍS o The Guardian hayan participado en la difusión de los cables de Wikileaks ha supuesto, explica Hamster, informático londinense de 26 años, un plus de credibilidad para medios hasta ahora poco apreciados.

La semana pasada nos pusimos en contacto con miembros de Anonymous en España. Aclarando, como siempre, que no respondían en calidad de portavoces de nadie, ya que el movimiento no tiene portavoces, declinaron realizar una entrevista telefónica o en persona. Cualquiera que intente destacar un poco entre los anonymous es automáticamente rechazado por el resto de la comunidad. Así ocurrió en Londres en diciembre con Coldblood, un anonymous que dio la cara ante los medios en los días del proceso a Assange. "Coldblood ha sido condenado al ostracismo", confirma Hamster, miembro de Anonymous desde 2008.

No obstante, los miembros de Anonymous Spain, que desde hace varias semanas envían comunicados a ciertos medios de comunicación actualizando la información en torno a las distintas operaciones de ataque, ofrecieron la posibilidad de que les enviáramos un cuestionario, al que responderían de modo consensuado.

Respondieron tres administradores del canal #hispano, encuadrados en edades entre los 17 y 32 años, según dijeron. Sus respuestas, desde luego, encajan perfectamente con el discurso que mantienen los miembros de este movimiento de conciencia onlineconsultados hasta la fecha y con el tono de las webs en que participan. Resulta interesante reproducir aquí las respuestas de esta célula de Anonymous a las preguntas que les enviamos para aclarar ciertas dudas. No son portavoces de nada. Pero sus palabras sirven para reflejar el sentir de esa comunidad.

Pregunta. ¿Se puede dar alguna cifra de cuánta gente en España pertenece a Anonymous? ¿Y cuánta a nivel internacional?

Respuesta. Sería imposible dar cifras, y esa es la gracia de Anonymous. Para empezar, hay que recordar que es una organización que no existe y que por definición es una (des)organización. Anonymous no es nadie y puede ser cualquiera. Salvando las distancias, es como una organización insurgente basada en células, compartimos una marca, Anonymous, pero somos gente independiente, que responde a una ideología común y que participa de cada acción particular de acuerdo con si coincide o no con sus convicciones.

Teniendo lo anterior en cuenta, y específicamente en España, si tuviera que dar una cifra, creo que estaríamos hablando de entre 1.000 y 2.000 personas, que van en diversos niveles de compromiso, desde una mayoría que serían los que apoyan nuestras iniciativas en Twitter, Facebook, etcétera, hasta los más comprometidos, que serían algo más de un centenar, los que participan saliendo a la calle con acciones reales como, por ejemplo, la Operación Paperstorm

[distribución de folletos, flyers, pintadas] o las concentraciones de la Operación Demostración [concentraciones en España a favor de Wikileaks y contra la ley Sinde]

. A nivel internacional, extrapolando, hablaríamos posiblemente de decenas de miles.

P. De ellos, ¿cuántos participan en los ataques DDoS?

R. Aquí sí podemos dar cifras más exactas. En los ataques del 20 de diciembre contra laley Sinde contábamos con casi 500 usuarios conectados en la Colmena, que es el sistema de comando y control de la herramienta de DDoS LOIC que permite que todos losanonymous ataquen a un mismo tiempo a un mismo objetivo. Este número, no obstante, podría ser más alto, pues habría que añadir la gente que atacaba manualmente o desde Linux.

P. ¿Alguna iniciativa en las acciones de Anonymous tuvo su origen en conversaciones de Anonymous España?

R. Realmente no se puede diferenciar entre Anonymous de tal o cual país. Cuando se plantea una operación, si esta es secundada, recibe apoyos de todo el planeta; hubo apoyos a nuestra lucha contra la ley Sinde en diciembre y aún esperamos más en el futuro. Prueba de ello es esta convocatoria redactada en más de 15 idiomas, en la que han participado anonymous de todo el mundo, en la que se hace un llamamiento a todos los anonymous a apoyar las protestas virtuales contra la ley Sinde.

P. ¿En qué foros o webs os movéis?

R. Nuestro principal punto de unión no es una web o un foro, sino una red de chat conocida como IRC, nosotros lo llamamos el IRC Anonops. Aquí nos reunimos en diversos canales de discusión como #operationpayback o #hispano, este último, el que aglutina a los anonymous españoles; desde ahí se pone en común y se plantean estrategias. Las que son secundadas luego se van distribuyendo a la red por blogs y webs anonymous, hasta llegar a los Twitter y Facebook de anonymous individuales. Es una estructura perfectamente organizada en la que, sin embargo, no existen líderes ni ninguna fuente inicial.

P. ¿Qué diríais a la gente que dice que sois hackers?

R. La mayor parte de los anonymous no son hackers en el sentido clásico de la palabra, son usuarios de Internet como cualquiera, solo que con una motivación para el activismo digital. Lo que sí es cierto es que contamos con hackers entre nuestras filas, por ejemplo, la gente que administra los servidores de IRC y el resto de las redes de comunicaciones encriptadas, o los que programan LOIC [Low Orbit Ion Cannon, aplicación para realizar pruebas de resistencia a una red informática] y las herramientas de ataques. He aquí la grandeza de Anonymous, solo hace falta un genio informático para programar la herramienta, y cuando esta herramienta pasa a ser usada por miles de personas anónimas, aunque no sean expertos a efectos prácticos, es como contar con un ciberejército de miles de hackers que pueden inutilizar cualquier red o sistema informático si se lo proponen.

P. ¿Cuáles son los principios básicos de vuestro ideario?

R. Son pocos y terriblemente simples, lo que permite unificar a la mayor cantidad de gente posible. Anonimato absoluto, que supone, entre otras cosas, la ausencia total de líderes y cabezas visibles en nuestro movimiento; la lucha contra la corrupción en los Gobiernos o en cualquier estructura de poder. La defensa incondicional de la libertad en Internet.

P. ¿Existe peligro de que alguien intente manipular vuestras operaciones desde dentro?

R. Sería imposible, cada anonymous actúa de forma individual, él mismo decide si forma o no parte de una operación de forma totalmente independiente del resto. Si piensas en organizaciones reivindicativas del siglo XX, siempre han corrido el riesgo de que un topo se infiltrara y con el tiempo llegara a formar parte de la cúpula para desbaratar la organización desde dentro; eso sería imposible con anonymous, pues no existen líderes, ni se sigue una jerarquía formal. No obstante, sí sabemos que existen agresiones externas contra Anonymous, como la investigación del FBI abierta a raíz de los ataques DDoS a Mastercard y PayPal, o sofisticados ataques informáticos que hemos sufrido y sospechamos provienen de servicios de inteligencia occidentales; afortunadamente, en estos casos la naturaleza descentralizada de Anonymous también hace imposible cualquier injerencia externa.

P. ¿Cuáles son las preocupaciones actuales de Anonymous?

R. Lo importante, la verdadera preocupación, es seguir luchando por los principios de nuestro ideario, y en función de eso estamos trabajando en varias operaciones. Está en marcha la publicidad de fase 2 de la Operación Sinde, que consistirá en diversas acciones de protesta en torno al día 18 de enero, en que termina el plazo de presentación de enmiendas a dicha ley. A nivel mundial está en marcha la Operación Tunisia, en apoyo a los manifestantes en contra del régimen tunecino: se han realizado ataques DDoS contra diversos sitios oficiales y también se ha elaborado un kit de ayuda informático con programas de cifrado y comunicaciones para los disidentes tunecinos. En relación con el futuro estamos preparando la Operación Quicksilver, que, si tiene éxito, va a conmover Internet, pero los detalles, por su propia naturaleza, son secretos por el momento.

El movimiento Anonymous va camino de trascender el caso Assange y el episodio Wikileaks. La persecución del fundador de la web de las filtraciones, que recientemente puso al desnudo a la diplomacia norteamericana y destapó maniobras, tejemanejes y corrupción en las cuatro esquinas del planeta, ha sido un detonante. Wikileaks representa como pocas organizaciones los valores en los que creen los anonymous:transparencia, derechos humanos, libertad de expresión. La web destapa secretos: si algo le pone a un anonymous es destapar secretos de organizaciones poderosas y ponerlos a disposición de público. Así, Assange se ha convertido en todo un símbolo para los integrantes de esta comunidad.

Wikileaks ha negado en todo momento estar detrás de las operaciones de Anonymous. Su número dos, Kristinn Hranfsson, lo contaba hace un mes en el centro de la organización en Londres. "Ni hemos animado a que se haga, ni tenemos contacto con la gente que lo está haciendo, pero tampoco lo condenamos", contaba, cigarrillo en boca, este periodista de investigación islandés enrolado en las filas de Assange.

Una buena parte de los anonymous se aglutina en torno a la web whyweprotest.net. Hamster se conecta con su iPad a este espacio en que los miembros de la comunidad intercambian ideas e iniciativas. Este joven informático cuenta que el canal 4chan estuvo en el origen del movimiento, pero que la acción se sitúa ahora en whyweprotest. "Cualquiera puede entrar y preservar su anonimato. Eso es lo bueno. La gente se centra en lo que dicen los demás, y no en quién lo dice".

Hamster sorbe su café con caramelo en un céntrico café de Oxford Street. Su iPad está desplegado en la mesa, está continuamente chequeándolo, responde a las preguntas, pero su mirada se va constantemente hacia la pantalla. Muestra una foto de la habitación de su casa: un ordenador, cuatro pantallas. "Así puedes estar atento a varias cosas a la vez", dice, y suelta una entrecortada sonrisa.

Cuenta que hay cerca de 33.000 personas registradas en whyweprotest. La gran mayoría, miembros de Anonymous o simpatizantes de la causa. "Los más agresivos son la gente de Anonops, yo soy menos agresivo". Dentro de Anonymous hay detractores de los ataques DDoS. "Creo que esos ataques nos desacreditan", afirma Magnonymous. "Van a utilizarlos para criminalizarnos y para generar propaganda negativa sobre nosotros". Magnonymous lo tiene claro: "No debemos utilizar la violencia en ningún caso. Cualquier miembro que propusiera utilizar la violencia sería rechazado por el grupo". Hay otro espacio en el que también se mueven los miembros del colectivo: whywefight.net, el blog informativo de los "soldados de la ciberguerra".

Hamster se unió a Anonymous a principios de 2008. Cuenta que lo hizo al poco de abandonar la Iglesia de la Cienciología. "Me di cuenta de que no me ayudaban para nada. Lo único que hacen es convertirte en un idiota y manipularte". Afirma que abandonó la cienciología internamente, pero no de hecho: cuenta que sigue yendo dos veces por semana y que intenta sacar documentación para ponerla a disposición de Anonymous. "Honestamente, a veces me da un miedo horrible. Si me descubrieran, convertirían mi vida en un infierno".

La Iglesia de la Cienciología es uno de los grandes enemigos de Anonymous. La lucha contra esta secta fue lo primero que unió a todos estos ciberactivistas en 2008, y siguen en las mismas. Una lucha que en realidad arrancó a mediados de los noventa, pero que tomó cuerpo en 2008. A los anonymous no les gusta la seudociencia, ni, por lo general, las religiones. Sostienen que la tecnología debe servir para expandir el conocimiento, no para controlar las mentes. Como explica la profesora Gabriella Coleman, antropóloga de la Universidad de Nueva York especializada en el mundo hacker y estudiosa del fenómeno Anonymous, la Iglesia de la Cienciología es la perfecta antítesis de Anonymous, el fenómeno inverso: oscurantismo, ocultamiento, censura. Destapar los secretos de una organización secretista, de una organización religiosa con marca registrada, sostiene, se convirtió en el primer gran desafío de Anonymous. En febrero de 2008, los miembros que se reunían en la Red desde sus casas trasladaron sus protestas a la calle, a la "vida real". Hubo manifestaciones en Londres, Ámsterdam, Berlín, Sidney. "Fue cuando más gente de Anonymous he visto en la calle", reconoce Hamster.

PayPal. Visa. Mastercad. Amazon. PostFinance. La web de la fiscalía sueca, la del partido irlandés Fine Gael, las del régimen tunecino. No hay fronteras para Anonymous. La lucha contra la cienciología les unió. La lucha pro Wikileaks les ha reunido de nuevo. Cualquier ataque a los derechos humanos, cualquier intento de censurar, se produzca donde se produzca, será castigado por ellos con las armas que tienen a su alcance. "Si hubiera una revolución", dice Hamster, "Internet nos proporcionaría la tecnología".


OLD MEDIA x CROWD MEDIA

 

A crítica ao estabelecido ....

 

Com base na cobertura da tragédia na serra carioca post recente do Observatório de Imprensa critica o "fisiologismo-sensacionalista" do jornalismo espetáculo em detrimento de uma proposição orgânica pautada por um cultura de prevenção, acompanhamento, memória & conscientização >

 

A prevenção como preocupação permanente da imprensa na cobertura de tragédias naturais
Postado por Carlos Castilho em 15/1/2011 às 19:46:07
 
 

 

A tragédia da região serrana do Rio de Janeiro indica que a imprensa brasileira precisa passar a tratar a prevenção nos casos de catástrofes naturais como um item permanente em sua agenda noticiosa, como já acontece no Japão, Costa Rica e Chile, por exemplo.

A combinação fatal de mudanças climáticas, crescimento demográfico e descaso governamental criou no Brasil uma situação similar a de países acostumados a conviver com terremotos, furacões, nevascas e enchentes periódicas.

As tragédias de Teresópolis e Nova Friburgo, no Rio de Janeiro já não podem mais ser consideradas eventos ocasionais devido a frequência com que as chuvaradas estão ocorrendo em regiões urbanas do Brasil, especialmente no verão.

E a cobertura desses eventos também não pode mais ser vista pelas redações como pretexto sazonal para shows tecnológicos, palco para performances individuais de repórteres e competição entre empresas jornalísticas.

A prevenção em catástrofes naturais passou a ser item obrigatório na agenda de serviços públicos da imprensa, a exemplo do que ocorre num país pequeno como a Costa Rica, onde os terremotos são considerados eventos rotineiros. Há jornalistas especializados em cobertura de desastres e até cursos regulares, como os ministrados por órgãos governamentais em países da região andina, também sujeitos a terremotos frequentes.

A abordagem jornalística de prevenção de acidentes prevê um trabalho continuado de produção de informações voltadas ao interesse público e à preparação das comunidades para enfrentar situações especiais. Trata-se especialmente de usar a notícia para estimular a preocupação com ações coletivas e criar solidariedades, não apenas na hora da tragédia.

A imprensa tem ainda uma outra função importantissima, conforme a maioria dos manuais existentes sobre prevenção de catástrofes naturais: a de acumular informações e conhecimento sobre desastres e suas consquências. Cada evento gera lições que não podem ser desperdiçadas.

Além disso, a imprensa não pode trabalhar desvinculada das comunidades. Se a relação entre jornalistas e comunidade fosse algo incorporado à rotina profissional, teria sido bem mais fácil usar todos os recursos de comunicação e a rede de contatos dos jornalistas para avisar a população sobre a iminência de uma tragédia. Na Costa Rica, a sincronia entre autoridades, imprensa e comunidades é quase automática numa catastrofe natural.

Na cidade de Areal, na região serrana do Rio, vizinha a Petrópolis, não houve perda de vidas humanas porque a prefeitura avisou a população a tempo sobre a possibilidade de uma tromba d´água.

A preocupação com a prevenção reforça a idéia de jornalismo como serviço público, uma abordagem da profissão que hoje está quase sepultada pela visão mercantil e industrial das empresas de comunicação.

 

A iniciativa em rede pelo novo....

pela reçem-lancada plataforma de crowdfunding CATARSE 

 

 http://bit.ly/AjudeumReporter


 


O que é o Ajude um Repórter? 


O Ajude um Repórter conecta jornalistas e produtores de conteúdo a fontes e personagens para matérias e outros conteúdos que ainda estão sendo produzidos. 

Se você procura fontes e personagens para matérias, posts em blogs ou pesquisas, nós podemos ajudar. 

Acreditamos que existem formas diferentes de se relacionar com a imprensa, que podem ser acessíveis a qualquer pessoa. A idéia é democratizar esse acesso e oferecer novas fontes aos repórteres e novas oportunidades a quem busca espaço na mídia. 

Utilizamos do crowdsourcing para encontrar as pessoas necessárias a cada conteúdo. Para ter uma idéia, visite o atual serviço no Twitter (@ajudeumreporter). 

A iniciativa começou há 10 meses e, hoje, já tem mais de 9.700 seguidores que se ajudam diariamente. Pelo menos 19% dos jornalistas que utilizam o serviço já tiveram sucesso nas buscas, enquanto que 12% das fontes já foram citadas em alguma matéria jornalística, tanto em pequenos como em grandes veículos de mídia convencional ou digital. 

O Projeto 

A utilização do Twitter serviu para verificar a aceitação da idéia e agora queremos construir uma plataforma capaz de oferecer mais serviços, segmentar interesses e garantir a privacidade dos usuários. Para isso, precisamos da sua ajuda. 

Ter um site assim vai possibilitar oferecer o serviço a muito mais pessoas, especialmente àquelas que não estão no Twitter. Algumas outras funções importantes também serão possíveis, como: 

•Proteção de identidade, sem exposição de emails; 
•Controle anti-spam; 
•Segmentação por assuntos; 
•Envio de alertas; 
•E também vai permitir tornar o modelo sustentável a longo prazo, com a oferta de serviços de valor adicionado aos usuários fontes. 

Para ter uma idéia melhor do que estamos falando, veja neste vídeo http://vimeo.com/18841790 o protótipo que criamos em 2010. 

Nosso Compromisso 

Nós temos o compromisso de manter o serviço gratuito e não tiraremos isso de vocês. O serviço gratuito vai oferecer o recebimento das informações por email e Twitter, com interação pelo site. 

A idéia é criar um modelo freemium, cobrando apenas dos que optarem pelo acesso diferenciado, que será importante para manter o serviço no ar. E se você nos ajudar durante essa campanha, já pode garantir acesso exclusivo antecipadamente. 

O Objetivo 

O objetivo é chegar a R$ 15.000,00 e serão investidos pelo menos mais R$ 5.000,00 do nosso bolso para garantirmos o necessário no desenvolvimento. 

Se cada um dos 9700 seguidores que nós temos no Twitter contribuísse com apenas R$ 1,54 chegaríamos facilmente ao nosso objetivo. O crowdfunding permite que você faça uma pequena contribuição para realizar algo muito maior. 

Tudo ou Nada 

O Catarse funciona no ‘Tudo ou Nada’. Isso quer dizer que, se não alcançarmos o nosso objetivo, o projeto não se realiza e você recebe o seu dinheiro de volta. 

Recompensas 

As recompensas servem para inspirar a sua participação. Elas são a nossa forma de agradecer o seu apoio para tirar essa idéia do papel. Se você gostou desse projeto, escolha a sua recompensa ou ajude-nos com qualquer quantia. 

O que é o kit evangelista? 

O kit foi criado para quem quer se envolver com o projeto e ainda participar da divulgação. Ele oferece o acesso exclusivo ao site e ainda vem com material promocional, além de vouchers de desconto para os serviços que serão oferecidos no futuro. 

O que é o acesso exclusivo? 

O acesso exclusivo permitirá a você ver tudo que é publicado no site em tempo real. É um acesso permanente, sem limite de tempo. Você não precisará renovar ou pagar qualquer valor adicional no fuituro para mantê-lo. 
Em comparação, o acesso gratuito permitirá apenas receber o conteúdo pelo email e pelo Twitter. 

O que é o acesso avançado? 

O acesso avançado trará mais funções, como alertas por palavras-chave e envio de pautas para os jornalistas que permitirem. Essas são apenas algumas das funções previstas para breve. 

O que é o acesso ao planejamento da campanha? 

Você terá acesso a todo o material que foi utilizado para criar uma das primeiras campanhas do Catarse, com planilhas, textos e todo o material original, com dicas e ainda um framework para montar a sua campanha mais facilmente. O material incluirá estatísticas de participação. 

O que são os anúncios no site e nas newsletters ? 

O acesso gratuito funcionará com o envio de 3 edições diárias de newsletters com os pedidos recebidos no dia, é onde estará possivelmente a maior base de usuários. Os anúncios serão veiculados no cabeçalho dessas newsletters ou nas páginas internas do site. 

Por que VOCÊ deve ajudar? 

Porque o ARPO é uma proposta diferente pra criar relacionamento com a imprensa, que traz oportunidades pra você, independente da área de atuação, participar de matérias jornalísticas, falar daquilo que você realmente entende, promover a sua causa e construir a sua marca pessoal, cada vez mais valorizada no mercado. 

Por que o JORNALISTA/BLOGUEIRO deve ajudar? 

Porque o ARPO é uma nova forma de encontrar o que você precisa no momento em que você precisa, fontes qualificadas, novas e diferentes. O ARPO livra você daquela chuva de releases e das mensagens indesejadas ou fora do tema que você precisa. Hoje, milhares de pessoas estão envolvidas com essa iniciativa e quanto maior o número de pessoas, maior é a ajuda que o repórter pode receber. 

Por que outros PROFISSIONAIS e EMPREENDEDORES devem ajudar? 

Porque é um serviço que pode trazer grande retorno de mídia não-paga, com uma grande vantagem para quem precisa iniciar um relacionamento com a imprensa: nós mostramos exatamente o que o jornalista precisa e como você pode ajudá-lo. Ajudamos você a encontrar as pautas e expor seu produto ou serviço sem precisar contratar ninguém, sem gastar nada. Os serviços adicionais são só um complemento que você pode resolver pagar se achar que valem a pena. 

Por que as ASSESSORIAS devem ajudar? 

Porque o ARPO é uma nova forma de relacionamento entre repórteres e fontes, além de ser a porta de entrada para muitos profissionais e empreendedores que hoje não podem arcar com os custos de uma assessoria, mas começam a compreender a importância do relacionamento com a mídia e no futuro buscarão auxílio da sua empresa. 

Depende de você 

Com a sua ajuda, queremos produzir o site em até 3 meses. Esperamos ter conseguido te empolgar e inspirar com essa idéia. De qualquer forma, pedimos, por favor, que ajude a divulgar entre seus amigos e colegas para que tenhamos sucesso. 

Cada pequena ajuda é uma grande ajuda. 

Muito obrigado! 

Mais informações: 
Site: www.ajudeumreporter.com.br 
Twitter: @ajudeumreporter 
Facebook: www.facebook.com/ajudeumreporter 


Gustavo Carneiro é relações-públicas formado pela Faculdade Cásper Líbero e técnico em eletrônica pela ETESP. Mexe com computadores desde os 8 anos. Já ganhou dois prêmios pela ABRP e viveu dois anos fora do Brasil. De volta ao país, encontrou no Ajude um Repórter uma oportunidade de unir comunicação e tecnologia de uma forma nova e diferente. Twitter: @gustacarneiro 
@VRSS


 


 

No dia 19/01 (quarta), Clay Shirky, Daniel Ellsberg entre outros irão discutir Wikileaks ao vivo no Fora TV. Para os interessados aqui vai o link: http://fora.tv/live/churchill_club/Wikileaks_Why_it_Matters

 

WikiLeaks: Why it Matters. Why it Doesn’t?

A panel of leading thinkers explores WikiLeaks and its implications for access to information, security, first amendment rights, innovation, and more.

 

Speakers:

Daniel Ellsberg, Former State and Defense Dept. Official prosecuted for releasing the Pentagon Papers

Clay Shirky, Independent Internet Professional; Adjunct Professor, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University

Neville Roy Singham, Founder and Chairman, ThoughtWorks

Peter Thiel, President, Clarium Capital; Managing Partner, Founder's Fund

Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Law and Professor of Computer Science, Harvard University; Co-founder, Berkman Center for Internet & Society

Moderator:
Paul Jay, CEO and Senior Editor, The Real News Network

 

Ex-Banker Gives WikiLeaks Offshore Bank Account Data


By Matt Cantor,  Newser Staff
(NEWSER) – A Swiss ex-banker gave WikiLeaks data today on some 2,000 individuals with offshore bank accounts handing the data to Julian Assange himself at a London news conference. "He is clearly a bona fide whistleblower," the WikiLeaks founder said. "We have some kind of duty to support him in that matter.” Rudolf Elmer, who headed the Cayman Islands office of Julius Baer until he was fired in 2002, earlier told Reuters that his goal is “educating society about offshore abuses and how they work.” 

The data, compiled between 1990 and 2009, includes information on multimillionaires and firms based in the US, Germany, and Britain, he says. “The story is about bank secrecy and the damage it does to society when it's employed to hide tax evasion, money laundering, and corruption,” says a lawyer for Elmer, who goes on trial in Switzerland Wednesday for breaching bank secrecy. “I believe in the system of WikiLeaks," says Elmer. "Such a thing has to exist. WikiLeaks was my last hope.” Much of the material has already been given to officials in countries where the account holders are believed to live.

 
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives for a news conference with former Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer, not seen, at the Frontline Club in London, Monday Jan. 17, 2011.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives for a news conference with former Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer, not seen, at the Frontline Club in London, Monday Jan. 17, 2011.   (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)


Aqui está o resultado do debate com Clay Shirky, Daniel Ellsberg entre outros que aconteceu na madrugada desta Quinta-Feira.

 

WikiLeaks: Why It Matters…Or Maybe It Doesn’t

How much does WikiLeaks matter? Or does it?

That’s the question up for debate tonight at a Churchill Club program at the Marriott in Santa Clara, California. It’s quite an illustrious panel:

Julian Assange is otherwise engaged, of course.

The event is being streamed live on Fora.TV, and will be YouTube sometime tomorrow.

Here are some key talking points from the discussion, which I’ll be updating live.

  • Paul Jay is apparently a Canadian documentary producer. He says the issue here is rights. The right to privacy. The right to access to information. The right of private companies to put commercial interests first. The right of public discourse on a platform that is primarily privately owned – which is, the Internet. He says it is also an issue about whistle-blowers.
  • Jay starts by introducing Ellsberg, who was prosecuted for releasing the Pentagon Papers, and asks about attempts to prosecute Assange. He says he was the first person in the U.S. to be prosecuted in the U.S. for a leak; he says he was prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which had only been used previously against spies. He says it was always understood that it was intended to cover spying. He says Congress had always rejected a U.K. style Official Secrets Act, and that it was the role of the press to disclose wrong-doing by government officials. He notes that President Clinton vetoed a U.S. version of the Official Secrets Acts, which would have criminalized what Assange did – and what he, Ellsberg, did. He said the act would basically have covered readers of the New York Times who read such information publisher in the newspaper. Only three prosecutions prior to Obama, including Ellsberg’s case. He says the Supreme Court has never ruled on the concept of putting millions of pages of classified documents in the public domain – and issuing criminal sanctions.
  • Ellsberg notes that there have been five prosecutions on release of state secrets during the Obama Administration. He says it is part of a policy. Most of those were before WikiLeaks, and two were for acts during the Bush Administration – but which were not prosecuted while Bush was in office. He says there is a war on whistle-blowers. Ellsberg thinks Obama feels more vulnerable to whistle-blowers than his predecessors. He says Obama is a little more embarrassed by things torture and other acts that didn’t particularly bother Bush or previous presidents. His view: WikiLeaks matters.
  • Next, the panel gets to question Ellsberg. Shirkey notes that WikiLeaks is an international organization, and that the situation changes things quite dramatically. He says people will leaks to nations other than the one where the information originated.
  • Jay notes that Canada has a law that intelligence agencies can’t listen to conversations by Canadians, and that Australia has the same law; he says as a result Canada listens to Australians, and vice versa. (And I presume they trade information.)
  • Thiel, an avowed libertarian, says transparency is an incredibly powerful weapon of sorts, and that we should distinguish between governments and individuals. One difference is that governments have the power of the state, they can use violence. He says there is more privacy and presumption of innocence for individuals. He says we have to ask hard questions about where the transparency is being increased, and how it changes the balance of power between governments and individuals.
  • Singham asks whether this is a historic moment in terms of secrecy? Ellsberg says there has been some discussion that implies the Pentagon Papers leak was good but that WikiLeaks is bad. Jay notes that the State Department is touring a group of movies around the world that includes a documentary about Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. He also notes that his actions in some ways did contribute to the end of the Vietnam War, and the resignation of Richard Nixon, whose campaign broke into his analyst’s office to collect information about him. He notes that warrantless wire-tapping and the use of the CIA as secret police, which were issues in his case, were made legal during the Bush Administration. He says acts that were illegal and lead to Nixon’s resignation have been made legal. He also says he has a great affinity for Bradley Manning, who leaked the recent tranche of diplomatic cables to Assange. He says Manning could in theory be given the death penalty for his action; if that happened, he says, he would be the first American to be given the death penalty for giving information to Americans since Nathan Hale.
  • Jay points out that Amazon removed WikiLeaks data from its servers, and that other companies (Visa, MasterCard, others) likewise terminated relationships with the site, due in part to requests from government officials, in particular Sen. Joe Lieberman. Shirkey says it highlights that the Internet is a private sphere, not a public sphere, that tolerates public speech. He says Lieberman is one of the few intellectually honest actors in this part of the debate. Lieberman says the Pentagon Papers case was wrongly decided, and that the New York Times should have been culpable.
  • Jay asks Thiel: would PayPal have cut off WikiLeaks? Thiel says sometimes you have to do what is wrong, and not very courageous. He says he has not been running PayPal since 2002, and so doesn’t face the dilemma. He says in both cases companies will cave, saying they respect people’s privacy issues, but they cave. He says it is like the way say governments say they never deal with terrorists…except in every specific instance. He says in every specific case in this situation, companies always cave. He says we’d like to have heroic CEOs running these companies; he also says we should have more of a balance of power; he says it isn’t always clear how laws are applied. He says he just read a book that claimed the average person commits three felonies a day. The point, he says, is that there are a lot of gray zones in the law; the reality, he says, is that most CEOs are not like Ellsberg. And that we should reduce the power of the state to do violence against individuals and corporations.
  • Thiel notes that most companies, certainly most larger companies, are entangled with the government in all sorts of different ways; he says there are lots of laws, and you don’t want them used against you in arbitrary ways. He says having a less powerful government would be helpful; and that supporting individuals like Assange also would be helpful.
  • On Amazon he says there is question about the company’s real motive: whether they are shutting them down out of their own beliefs, or because of government pressure, that “government power was lurking in the background.”
  • Ellsberg adds that there is no U.S. law that would criminalize what Assange did that would not also apply to the New York Times. He notes that they basically decided which cables would be published.
  • Nice quote from Shirkey: “Assange could drown cats in his basement but it wouldn’t change one face contained in those cables.” He made the comment after noting that the Times did a “tremendously unflattering” profile of Assange on the front page.
  • Zittrain finally gets to weigh in. He says the easy answer of what to do if you were running PayPal, would be to say you wouldn’t co-operate. But Zittrain says that if someone is running a company, they are under extreme pressure, and if you are designing a system from the top, you want to design the system recognizing that people have to play their roles. He says you want to set up the roles so that they are in healthy conflict, the classic idea of the separation of powers, and the role of the media – he says so far what’s he’s heard from Ellsberg, that he decided with few official options, decided to leak. He says Peter’s view as a libertarian is going to be naturally that government should be smaller.
  • Zittrain says Ellsberg said he is against a state secrets act, but does not say that there is no information that should be secret. He says the question is how to set up the pieces on the board in a world when you can capture millions of secrets on a thumb drive labeled Lady Gaga. (Which is what Manning did.) He also notes that the difference between a leaker and a spy is who you leak to – if you leak only to Russia, then you’re a spy. Leak to everyone, and you are a leaker. He says we need to think through ways to “leak responsibly.” Could you come up with a system where there is leaking, but with redactions of some information.
  • Zittrain points to a case called Marsh v. Alabama in which the court ruled that companies that rule a public space have to come under the rules that apply to governments – and that the case conceivably could be applied to the Internet.
  • Singham describes a story involving four librarians who received a national security letter, who received a request for information, and received a gag order that doesn’t even allow to speak about their gag order. He says btween 2003 and 2006 there were 100s of 1000s of letters of this variety. Sigham then reads the “search and seizure” clause in the Fourth Amendment. He says gag orders are Orwellian; he says they eventually became the first four Americans to admit they received a national security letter. His question is where are the librarians in the tech industry; he says two companies maintained their relationships with WikiLeaks, ZipWire, which forwarded the company cash, and Canadian company called EasyDNS, the DNS provider
  • Singham says freedom of the press has to include WikiLeaks; he also says criticism of the government is the core of the Fourth Amendment, and that the government is embarrassed by some of what happened in Afghanistan. He says what Amazon has done has totally set back the cloud movement, since some non-U.S. countries now won’t want to host their data in the U.S. He says we are at an inflection point on the abridgment of freedom of information.
  • Thiel chimes in to say that all these things come down to a lot of details; he says Harvard was not able to start Facebook as a public service. And he says they did better than if you had the U.S government create it. He says media are not just public services, you have to run them as businesses that are quire functional. He says it comes back to government versus corporate power, and that you don’t solve this by regulating corporations even more.
  • Zittrain says you can try to say corporations are the safe haven, but then their might be something the corporations are doing that isn’t so savory. He’s getting into it with Thiel, who contends that governments kill more people than corporations. Zittrain says he believes in joint and several liability.
  • Basically Zittrain and Thiel are having a debate over libertarianism.
  • Zittrain says if your view is that the system is basically corrupt, if that is your view, then you may have a set of conclusions on how history will vindicate the indiscriminate leaking of documents. He says in many ways, there has been too much of a push toward a national security state.
  • During Q&A, someone asks if Visa can’t discriminate against any kind of charity, why can they discriminate against Wikileaks. Zittrain says certain things are specifically prohibited in federal law, but that if Visa decides not to process any payments from Republicans, or people with names that start with W, they can do that as a business decision. He says one would hope that there aren’t just a few points of control; he says you don’t want to shut down speech by preventing the movement of bits.
  • Another questioner asks if WikiLeaks committed an act of journalism – or is it fundamentally different. Shirkey says the reason he always thought there would never be a shield law for journalists is that the definition is not so clear thanks to the Internet. He says there is this idea that WikiLeaks is a recent surprising event – and he says the concept contains three ideas, it isn’t recent, it isn’t surprising and it isn’t event. Shirkey says the tension between a shield law and what the network makes possible has been there for decades. He says there is no definition of journalism that Congress can enact that will hold up; they were going to be based on 20th century assumptions. Whether WikiLeaks is an act of journalism is indeterminate; but he says what is clear is that it is a media outlet, as much as any other actor in the system.
  • Ellsberg says one difference between the Pentagon Papers and WikiLeaks is that the Pentagon Papers did not disclose illegal acts – but that WikiLeaks has done so. On corporate/government cooperation, Ellberg says that is sometime necessary. He says government wants total transparency on their citizens. (He notes that the Stasi in East Germany took that approach…to know everything.) The other thing he says the government wants is total opacity of their own operations. He says we’re seeing private corporations helping to maintain that opacity. Ellsberg says even Assange does not believe in total transparency; he’s released less than 1% of what he has. Ellsberg notes that Assange, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, both talk about transparency; he says Zuckerberg is in favor of voluntary transparency. Ellsberg’s point seems to be that the debate between Zittrain and Thiel is flawed – that the risk is government and corporations working together.

And that’s about it. I’ve tried to capture a lot of this; I’d encouraged you to watch the video; I’ll add a link when it becomes available.

 

Fonte: http://blogs.forbes.com/ericsavitz/

 

Por alguma razão desconhecida não consigo postar os vídeos do debate "WikiLeaks: Why It Matters. Why It Doesn't?". Eles já estão disponíveis no YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=WikiLeaks:+Why+It+Matte...

 

Abs,

Alexandre Odainai disse:

Aqui está o resultado do debate com Clay Shirky, Daniel Ellsberg entre outros que aconteceu na madrugada desta Quinta-Feira.

 

WikiLeaks: Why It Matters…Or Maybe It Doesn’t

How much does WikiLeaks matter? Or does it?

That’s the question up for debate tonight at a Churchill Club program at the Marriott in Santa Clara, California. It’s quite an illustrious panel:

Julian Assange is otherwise engaged, of course.

The event is being streamed live on Fora.TV, and will be YouTube sometime tomorrow.

Here are some key talking points from the discussion, which I’ll be updating live.

  • Paul Jay is apparently a Canadian documentary producer. He says the issue here is rights. The right to privacy. The right to access to information. The right of private companies to put commercial interests first. The right of public discourse on a platform that is primarily privately owned – which is, the Internet. He says it is also an issue about whistle-blowers.
  • Jay starts by introducing Ellsberg, who was prosecuted for releasing the Pentagon Papers, and asks about attempts to prosecute Assange. He says he was the first person in the U.S. to be prosecuted in the U.S. for a leak; he says he was prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which had only been used previously against spies. He says it was always understood that it was intended to cover spying. He says Congress had always rejected a U.K. style Official Secrets Act, and that it was the role of the press to disclose wrong-doing by government officials. He notes that President Clinton vetoed a U.S. version of the Official Secrets Acts, which would have criminalized what Assange did – and what he, Ellsberg, did. He said the act would basically have covered readers of the New York Times who read such information publisher in the newspaper. Only three prosecutions prior to Obama, including Ellsberg’s case. He says the Supreme Court has never ruled on the concept of putting millions of pages of classified documents in the public domain – and issuing criminal sanctions.
  • Ellsberg notes that there have been five prosecutions on release of state secrets during the Obama Administration. He says it is part of a policy. Most of those were before WikiLeaks, and two were for acts during the Bush Administration – but which were not prosecuted while Bush was in office. He says there is a war on whistle-blowers. Ellsberg thinks Obama feels more vulnerable to whistle-blowers than his predecessors. He says Obama is a little more embarrassed by things torture and other acts that didn’t particularly bother Bush or previous presidents. His view: WikiLeaks matters.
  • Next, the panel gets to question Ellsberg. Shirkey notes that WikiLeaks is an international organization, and that the situation changes things quite dramatically. He says people will leaks to nations other than the one where the information originated.
  • Jay notes that Canada has a law that intelligence agencies can’t listen to conversations by Canadians, and that Australia has the same law; he says as a result Canada listens to Australians, and vice versa. (And I presume they trade information.)
  • Thiel, an avowed libertarian, says transparency is an incredibly powerful weapon of sorts, and that we should distinguish between governments and individuals. One difference is that governments have the power of the state, they can use violence. He says there is more privacy and presumption of innocence for individuals. He says we have to ask hard questions about where the transparency is being increased, and how it changes the balance of power between governments and individuals.
  • Singham asks whether this is a historic moment in terms of secrecy? Ellsberg says there has been some discussion that implies the Pentagon Papers leak was good but that WikiLeaks is bad. Jay notes that the State Department is touring a group of movies around the world that includes a documentary about Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. He also notes that his actions in some ways did contribute to the end of the Vietnam War, and the resignation of Richard Nixon, whose campaign broke into his analyst’s office to collect information about him. He notes that warrantless wire-tapping and the use of the CIA as secret police, which were issues in his case, were made legal during the Bush Administration. He says acts that were illegal and lead to Nixon’s resignation have been made legal. He also says he has a great affinity for Bradley Manning, who leaked the recent tranche of diplomatic cables to Assange. He says Manning could in theory be given the death penalty for his action; if that happened, he says, he would be the first American to be given the death penalty for giving information to Americans since Nathan Hale.
  • Jay points out that Amazon removed WikiLeaks data from its servers, and that other companies (Visa, MasterCard, others) likewise terminated relationships with the site, due in part to requests from government officials, in particular Sen. Joe Lieberman. Shirkey says it highlights that the Internet is a private sphere, not a public sphere, that tolerates public speech. He says Lieberman is one of the few intellectually honest actors in this part of the debate. Lieberman says the Pentagon Papers case was wrongly decided, and that the New York Times should have been culpable.
  • Jay asks Thiel: would PayPal have cut off WikiLeaks? Thiel says sometimes you have to do what is wrong, and not very courageous. He says he has not been running PayPal since 2002, and so doesn’t face the dilemma. He says in both cases companies will cave, saying they respect people’s privacy issues, but they cave. He says it is like the way say governments say they never deal with terrorists…except in every specific instance. He says in every specific case in this situation, companies always cave. He says we’d like to have heroic CEOs running these companies; he also says we should have more of a balance of power; he says it isn’t always clear how laws are applied. He says he just read a book that claimed the average person commits three felonies a day. The point, he says, is that there are a lot of gray zones in the law; the reality, he says, is that most CEOs are not like Ellsberg. And that we should reduce the power of the state to do violence against individuals and corporations.
  • Thiel notes that most companies, certainly most larger companies, are entangled with the government in all sorts of different ways; he says there are lots of laws, and you don’t want them used against you in arbitrary ways. He says having a less powerful government would be helpful; and that supporting individuals like Assange also would be helpful.
  • On Amazon he says there is question about the company’s real motive: whether they are shutting them down out of their own beliefs, or because of government pressure, that “government power was lurking in the background.”
  • Ellsberg adds that there is no U.S. law that would criminalize what Assange did that would not also apply to the New York Times. He notes that they basically decided which cables would be published.
  • Nice quote from Shirkey: “Assange could drown cats in his basement but it wouldn’t change one face contained in those cables.” He made the comment after noting that the Times did a “tremendously unflattering” profile of Assange on the front page.
  • Zittrain finally gets to weigh in. He says the easy answer of what to do if you were running PayPal, would be to say you wouldn’t co-operate. But Zittrain says that if someone is running a company, they are under extreme pressure, and if you are designing a system from the top, you want to design the system recognizing that people have to play their roles. He says you want to set up the roles so that they are in healthy conflict, the classic idea of the separation of powers, and the role of the media – he says so far what’s he’s heard from Ellsberg, that he decided with few official options, decided to leak. He says Peter’s view as a libertarian is going to be naturally that government should be smaller.
  • Zittrain says Ellsberg said he is against a state secrets act, but does not say that there is no information that should be secret. He says the question is how to set up the pieces on the board in a world when you can capture millions of secrets on a thumb drive labeled Lady Gaga. (Which is what Manning did.) He also notes that the difference between a leaker and a spy is who you leak to – if you leak only to Russia, then you’re a spy. Leak to everyone, and you are a leaker. He says we need to think through ways to “leak responsibly.” Could you come up with a system where there is leaking, but with redactions of some information.
  • Zittrain points to a case called Marsh v. Alabama in which the court ruled that companies that rule a public space have to come under the rules that apply to governments – and that the case conceivably could be applied to the Internet.
  • Singham describes a story involving four librarians who received a national security letter, who received a request for information, and received a gag order that doesn’t even allow to speak about their gag order. He says btween 2003 and 2006 there were 100s of 1000s of letters of this variety. Sigham then reads the “search and seizure” clause in the Fourth Amendment. He says gag orders are Orwellian; he says they eventually became the first four Americans to admit they received a national security letter. His question is where are the librarians in the tech industry; he says two companies maintained their relationships with WikiLeaks, ZipWire, which forwarded the company cash, and Canadian company called EasyDNS, the DNS provider
  • Singham says freedom of the press has to include WikiLeaks; he also says criticism of the government is the core of the Fourth Amendment, and that the government is embarrassed by some of what happened in Afghanistan. He says what Amazon has done has totally set back the cloud movement, since some non-U.S. countries now won’t want to host their data in the U.S. He says we are at an inflection point on the abridgment of freedom of information.
  • Thiel chimes in to say that all these things come down to a lot of details; he says Harvard was not able to start Facebook as a public service. And he says they did better than if you had the U.S government create it. He says media are not just public services, you have to run them as businesses that are quire functional. He says it comes back to government versus corporate power, and that you don’t solve this by regulating corporations even more.
  • Zittrain says you can try to say corporations are the safe haven, but then their might be something the corporations are doing that isn’t so savory. He’s getting into it with Thiel, who contends that governments kill more people than corporations. Zittrain says he believes in joint and several liability.
  • Basically Zittrain and Thiel are having a debate over libertarianism.
  • Zittrain says if your view is that the system is basically corrupt, if that is your view, then you may have a set of conclusions on how history will vindicate the indiscriminate leaking of documents. He says in many ways, there has been too much of a push toward a national security state.
  • During Q&A, someone asks if Visa can’t discriminate against any kind of charity, why can they discriminate against Wikileaks. Zittrain says certain things are specifically prohibited in federal law, but that if Visa decides not to process any payments from Republicans, or people with names that start with W, they can do that as a business decision. He says one would hope that there aren’t just a few points of control; he says you don’t want to shut down speech by preventing the movement of bits.
  • Another questioner asks if WikiLeaks committed an act of journalism – or is it fundamentally different. Shirkey says the reason he always thought there would never be a shield law for journalists is that the definition is not so clear thanks to the Internet. He says there is this idea that WikiLeaks is a recent surprising event – and he says the concept contains three ideas, it isn’t recent, it isn’t surprising and it isn’t event. Shirkey says the tension between a shield law and what the network makes possible has been there for decades. He says there is no definition of journalism that Congress can enact that will hold up; they were going to be based on 20th century assumptions. Whether WikiLeaks is an act of journalism is indeterminate; but he says what is clear is that it is a media outlet, as much as any other actor in the system.
  • Ellsberg says one difference between the Pentagon Papers and WikiLeaks is that the Pentagon Papers did not disclose illegal acts – but that WikiLeaks has done so. On corporate/government cooperation, Ellberg says that is sometime necessary. He says government wants total transparency on their citizens. (He notes that the Stasi in East Germany took that approach…to know everything.) The other thing he says the government wants is total opacity of their own operations. He says we’re seeing private corporations helping to maintain that opacity. Ellsberg says even Assange does not believe in total transparency; he’s released less than 1% of what he has. Ellsberg notes that Assange, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, both talk about transparency; he says Zuckerberg is in favor of voluntary transparency. Ellsberg’s point seems to be that the debate between Zittrain and Thiel is flawed – that the risk is government and corporations working together.

And that’s about it. I’ve tried to capture a lot of this; I’d encouraged you to watch the video; I’ll add a link when it becomes available.

 

Fonte: http://blogs.forbes.com/ericsavitz/

 

 

Alexandre, aí vai a parte 1 (acho que são 9)...

 

obs. tem de usar a opção "Use old embed code" do youtube...

 

Alexandre Odainai disse:

Por alguma razão desconhecida não consigo postar os vídeos do debate "WikiLeaks: Why It Matters. Why It Doesn't?". Eles já estão disponíveis no YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=WikiLeaks:+Why+It+Matte...

 

Abs,

Ahhh entendi. Muito obrigado pelo esclarecimento Luiz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Luiz de Campos Jr disse:

 

Alexandre, aí vai a parte 1 (acho que são 9)...

 

obs. tem de usar a opção "Use old embed code" do youtube...

 

Alexandre Odainai disse:

Por alguma razão desconhecida não consigo postar os vídeos do debate "WikiLeaks: Why It Matters. Why It Doesn't?". Eles já estão disponíveis no YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=WikiLeaks:+Why+It+Matte...

 

Abs,

Via Nilton Lessa

 

Wikileaks: This Is Just The Beginning

December 22nd, 2010 

 

http://www.thevirtualcircle.com/2010/12/wikileaks-this-is-just-the-...

 

 

“An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.”  Victor Hugo

(Note: A Portuguese translation of this article is available here and a Spanish translation is available here.)

There is much agitation about Wikileaks on the chattering channels in the US and elsewhere. The politicians are up in arms, many commentators are aghast and the legal eagles are pontificating. The press is having a field day, at least as regards the stories it can publish from leaked material. But all of them seem to be missing the import of what is happening.

History is on the march.

There’s a strong analogy in this with the Diet of Worms and the doomed attempt by Pope Leo X to silence Martin Luther.

Let’s eliminate some of the noise that is currently clogging the air.

  • The Julian Assange extradition to Sweden is almost irrelevant. It is generally perceived as an attempt to harass Assange and all it has done is provide him with a dramatic stage upon which to perform. The only relevant element in this is the fact that it has become global news.
  • The extradition of Julian Assange to the US will possibly make his life uncomfortable, but it will provide him with an even more powerful public stage. If it doesn’t happen the US government will be perceived as weak. If it happens it is unlikely to result in his conviction. If there’s no conviction it will be a victory for Assange and if he’s convicted, it will be an even greater victory for what he represents. For the US government, in terms of perception; it’s lose-lose-lose.
  • Julian Assange’s only importance is that of figurehead. If he’s pulled down from that position, by any event at all, whether it’s accidental, a conspiracy or the result of a legitimate recourse to law, it will not stop what has now started any more than finding Luther guilty at The Diet of Worms stopped the genesis of the Protestant movement.

The Battle That Was Lost

There was a brief attempt by the US government and its allies to try to close Wikileaks down. If we think of this as an information war, then the first battle in the war ended in a terrible defeat for the US. Here’s how it went:

  • Wikileaks was hit by denial of service attacks. It quickly acquired enough mirrors to become invulnerable.
  • Commercial power was brought through PayPal, Visa and Mastercard to try to deny donations. This back-fired. There can be very little doubt that more money flowed to Wikileaks because of the use of that commercial weapon, and anyway it wasn’t fully effective. To stop such donations you’d need the co-operation of nearly every bank in the world.
  • Technical infrastructure power was brought to bear, with Amazon ejecting Wikileaks from their servers and EveryDNS revoking Wikileaks DNS registration. It wasn’t hard for Wikileaks to find another DNS and all that the Amazon gesture achieved was brand damage for Amazon.

Anything short of closing Wikileaks down was defeat, and the US government went down to defeat in days. It was difficult, of course. The US Government needed, for political reasons, to be seen to be doing something, so it did a few ineffective things. Maybe more could be done.

The Lutheran Current

 In war, if you don’t have a clear understanding of what victory amounts to, you are in trouble. It is tempting to suggest that the US government is in deep trouble for that reason alone. However, it’s a mistake to see the US government as a specific side in this war. This is an info war and info wars take place between power structures not countries. It’s the US power structure, not the US itself, that currently has a side in this war. Info wars are, by their very nature, civil wars between groups of citizens that live under the aegis of a given information control structure. One side wished to conserve it, while the other wishes to change it.

Martin Luther triggered an info war. On one side were power structures that were based on controlling information in the way that it had been traditionally controlled. On the other side were revolutionaries who believed that those power structures needed to be replaced and information made more freely available than before. The initial battle was over the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church in Europe controlled the Bible. When printing presses appeared its control was weakened. The Gutenburg Press began business in 1450, the Diet of Worms was 70 years later in 1521.

Following The Diet of Worms, Pope Leo X issued a “fatwa” proclaiming it legal to kill Luther, but Luther simply retired to Wartburg Castle at Eisenach where he lived incognito, but also protected, translating the Bible into German. And of course, Luther wasn’t alone in translating the Bible. Others began to do the same. The Catholic Church not only lost its monopoly on the Bible, it also lost control of which language it was published in.

 Nowadays, this doesn’t sound as big a deal as it really was. At the time the Bible was regarded as the foundation of truth and knowledge. Very few other books existed; just the Greek classics of Plato, Aristotle and others. Those too were held in very high esteem.

Without the Protestant movement, Henry VIII of England would probably not have dared to rebel against Rome and set up his own protestant Church of England. Much later the English monarch, Charles I would be beheaded by the protestant Oliver Cromwell. Europe quickly divided between Protestant and Catholic countries, and the monarchies were gradually replaced either by democratic republics or democracies that relegated their monarchs to figurehead roles. The Diet of Worms had momentous consequences.

A War On Two Fronts

The US power structure cannot behave like the Soviet Union once did. It cannot roll into Prague with columns of tanks and install a different government by fiat. The Prague they seek to conquer is a virtual super-hydra. Strike it down and a hundred identical mirrors rise up from nowhere. Even if you destroy it entirely, other virtual Pragues will no doubt be established.

The infowar is now being fought on two fronts.

  1. The first front is the media itself, both old and new.
  2. The second front is the information technology that enables it.

In the Media

The ranks of the leaker-friendly side in this war are quickly growing in number. Many professional journalists have stood up in Australia to protest their government’s poor protection of Assange, its own citizen – and the public seems to be on its side. Similarly a whole host of UK journalists have stood shoulder to shoulder with Assange. Only in the US, where the press has become remarkably docile, is there a shortage of Wikileaks support in the main stream media, but this will change if the first amendment becomes the heart of the debate – and it probably will.

Wikileaks is spawning imitators quickly. At the last count there were 7 infoleaks sites; BalkanLeaks in the Balkans, BrusselsLeaks in Belgium, Indoleaks in Indonesia, Rospil in Russia, Tunileaks in Tunisia, Open Leaks (a splinter from Wikileaks) and Wikileaks itself. Most of these sites have mushroomed up in the past few weeks. There will be more.

It is likely that the idea of stealing information and leaking it “as a public duty” has become viral. The number of actual leaks is likely to increase. And this could spell disaster for any organization, government or otherwise, that has inadequate information security and also has something to hide. Information security was never a big area of investment for most organizations and it clearly wasn’t a priority for the US Army. Many more embarrassing leaks will occur from many places before any real semblance of information security is common.

The tide seems to be running with Wikileaks. There are details in this that ought to worry the US government if it is seeking to preserve any semblance of the status quo.

  • President Obama promised openness in government but never delivered. Now he’s hoist by his own petard. The US government now needs to get to grips with the issue of transparency or to simply declare transparency to be undesirable.
  • Except for within-the-beltway-political-leaks, nobody leaks information to the US media any more. The US media is no longer trusted, because Wikileaks and organizations of that ilk are a “safer and sexier” place to leak to. Additionally, the US media appears to have lost the taste for investigative journalism.
  • The US media’s business models are failing. They are beginning to look like dinosaurs.
  • The US government is not the only target. Other governments are targets too. So are many large companies. The US indignation right now is because of the content of the diplomatic cables. But how will the US government handle the leaking of, say, banking information that indicates some fraud, or any corporate information that demonstrates back-door collusion with government or between other governments. Trying to shoot the messenger will not work well with those types of leak.

Information Technology

The attempt to close down Wikileaks revealed genuine areas of vulnerability for Wikileaks and any other operation that wants to operate with impunity:

  • The DNS structure itself
  • Payment systems
  • Service providers (like Amazon)
  • Physical location

The very idea that US government can control the Internet for its own ends is worrying to many people, not necessarily because of the present situation, but because of situations that may arise in the future.

The natural reaction is to create a secure virtual infrastructure that makes such action impossible. This is probably achievable with a series of technical innovations. (Whether it is will determine the course of history) The innovations would include:

  • A DNS based on peer-to-peer technology (which would be impossible to close by closing any node)
  • Physical mesh networks (so that it would be very difficult to disconnect any individual node).
  • Regularly encrypted traffic
  • Peer-to-peer payment systems (circumventing major clearing operations like Visa and Mastercard)
  • Cloud services (like EC2) that are anonymized

It would also require some minimal legal protection for such systems. That, in turn, requires a government that will champion the kind of freedom that Wikileaks seeks. Whether such a government will step forward is hard to know, but if any, Iceland is probably the candidate.

We will probably see such innovations come to pass – provoked by the current confrontation.

It’s A Far Wider Conflict Than You Imagine

The infowar is real, but the protagonists are not as I have thus far described them. The US may be sore right now with Wikileaks, but this is about power structures. The US government is merely one of the power structures that is under the threat of “looser transparency” Almost all governments are under the same threat. Corporations that base their business models on corruption and extreme lobbying are also under threat. It may even be that the current world economic systems (national currencies and the world banking system) will be challenged.

The last great info war was enabled by the introduction of printing. It gave rise to a whole host of effects that were unpredictable at the time, but logical in retrospect. Its revolutionary nature was not appreciated at all at the time. However the following consequences can be laid at its door:

The schism in the Roman Church, the fall of the monarchies of Europe, the rise of democracy; the introduction of paper money, modern banking, insurance, limited companies, stock markets and other financial markets and much greater international trade; the birth of newspapers, literacy, the publishing industry and universal education.

This infowar did not begin with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, it began with Tim Berners Lee.

The previous infowar did not begin with Martin Luther and his Ninety-Five Theses, it began with Johannes Gutenberg.

Ultimately, it seems inevitable that other power structures will be drawn into battles in this war: the governments of China, Russia and Iran, for example.

Postscript 1

In one of the comments on this article, a link to The Transparency Paradox was provided. It is a perspective that I had never encountered before and, imho, extremely important, because it explains many things that are otherwise difficult to explain. I’m presuming here that the Game Theory behind it is kosher, which on the surface it appears to be.

The reality is that technology is currently amplifying transparency  and provoking change. As the paradox explains, those who seek power have no interest whatsoever in personal transparency, and little or no interest in general transparency.

Postscript 2

A full translation of this article into Portuguese is available here. Thanks to Paulo de Souza Lima.

Postscript 3

The following comment (from below but edited slightly) is, in my view, worth highlighting here…

I think you should mention that like today, there wasn’t only one force against Martin Luther or now against Wikileaks. During the birth of Protestantism, the Spanish empire was very keen to fight with its army in battles all across Europe to avoid Protestantism in order to avoid loosing it influence in their European lands: Germany and Bass countries mainly. (Henry VIII was also married with an Spanish woman because of power). The Catholic Church was linked with the Spanish empire but it wasn’t the same, as they also fought each other. The same as today; the USA interest is not the same as the Chinese or European interest, but they all fight against Wikileaks. The enemy is just not one.

 

Via Nilton Lessa também:

 

The Transparency Paradox R

 

Link => The Transparency Paradox

 

Transparency is good for a group - and why Actors fight against it -

The paradox of transparency is about the efficiency of actors within a group of people, working towards a common goal. And about how transparency is affecting the efficiency and ultimately the profit of the group, as well as of a single actor -

The outcome for the group all together is usually (all other factors constant):

 

With an increase of Transparency, the efficiency and hence the collective profit increases too.

However, transparency has a cost too - the 'optimal point' is somewhere in the middle-right of the below chart:

A verification can be done based on the above chart and using game theory:

1. Cost of Production: The cost of production decreases with the amount of knowledge each participant has. The cost has 3 basic parts:

a) The negotiation cost for the distribution of the work.

b) The sum of the actual cost of each actor doing his part of the task.

c) The negotiation of the distribution of the value created (pay-out of profits).

The distribution & coordination of the tasks is easiest, if everyone knows, what the different actors do best, and what their weaknesses are. And the pay-out of profits is easiest and best, if each it is known, what exactly each actor did.

2. Generated Value The more the Transparency, the more the Value created by the team. If the tasks are well coordinated, the quality of the work is best.

3. Cost of Transparency Transparency comes at a cost: The cost of providing (writing down oral communication, recording relevant discussions etc), as well as the cost of filtering (selection of the relevant information), acquiring (reading/viewing) and understanding (interpretation). To provide and acquire a basic transparency is not expensive and required for a successful job. But "full transparency" is very expensive, often more expensive than the overall profit of a project.

4. Overall Cost is the sum of the cost of production and the cost of transparency


5. Profit is the difference between the generated value and the overall cost.


The Paradox: Actors attempt to decrease their personal transparency.

For one single actor, the situation is very different: As the overall profit increases with increased transparency in the group, his personal profit increases too - however, his personal profit increases too with a DECREASE of his personal transparency - and the personal profit increase here is often much more substantial than the increase with an overall gain of transparency! - (negotiation power)

In short, the best strategy (maximizing profit) for one actor is, to get the transparency level in the group as high as possible, but to keep his own transparency as low as possible: 

"Preach transparency, but live the opposite!"

In our chart, the group has a strong tendency to move to the left side into an area of less profit. Especially, if multiple actors are pursuing a strategy of minimizing personal transparency - The group may even end up in an area, where the group makes a loss - while single actors may still make profits, increasing other actors losses.

Why does the individual profit increase with a decrease of the personal transparency?

The efficiency of the negotiations about the distribution of tasks and profits (a. and c. in above cost comments) are determined by the amount of transparency (=information) the group has about each actor. The best overall outcome is, if everyone gets the tasks fitting best to his skills, and the profit is distributed according to the importance of the tasks provided by the different actors.

The situation for one single actor is however different - his profit-maximizing strategy is:

Minimize the cost of tasks assigned to me, while maximizing the perceived importance of my tasks

Ideally, an actor gets a task, which is little to no work for him, but the other actors don't see that: For example a role like "Steering" or "Quality control". The group should be under the impression, that this task is very important, and that it can not succeed without the task.

Politics, Obstruction Strategies & Corruption

This un-alignment of individual & collective goals is the reason for 'politics' - in a positive, as well as in a negative sense.

To avoid a 'lose-lose' situation for all actors, leaders are selected, power is given to them, and the task, to lead the group towards the common goal and a maximization of the overall profit. If a leader is acting in the overall interest, he will bring the group to more transparency, will enable a good distribution of tasks, and a fair distribution of profits.

"Politics" in a negative sense however is the art of spreading different information to different actors, maximizing the "importance" of an actor (hence maximizing his pay-out), while minimizing the cost of the tasks assigned to him. These "obstruction strategies" however work only, if the information doesn't flow well in a group and/or is not recorded.

There are various strategies to maximize individual profits - a few of them:

- Increase the importance of the own tasks: Show, how the group can not be successful without your tasks.

- Increase the perceived cost of your tasks: Talk about all details of what is required to fulfill your tasks. Create the impression of being very busy.

- Decrease the perceived importance and costs of other people's tasks: Show, how simple the task of other people are, and that everyone can be easily replaced (or you could do other people's tasks easily). Don't do that with the actor itself, as it may result in reactions. Rather do this with other 3rd actors in the group - they will probably support you, as they too have an interest of decreasing the perceived value & cost of other people's tasks.

- Build alliances & supporters. There are various strategies how to do that by showing support to actors for maximizing their own tasks, as well as minimizing other people's tasks (talk positively with the actors, but negatively about him with others)

The larger a group, the more difficult it gets for a single actor to influence perception in an efficient way - Also because in a larger group, different actors have different roles within the negotiations. The key there for a single actor is, to win the flavor of key actors. Corruption helps in this case - in a hard or soft form:

(1) Hard corruption: An actor pays-out part of the additional profits to another actor in the group for his support. As this is not in the interest of the full group, this is usually forbidden & sanctioned.

(2) Soft corruption: Works without money, only over mutual flavors: An actor gives a favor to a friend, but expects in return a favor from him (We call this "Filz" in German). As this is very difficult to prove, soft corruption is quite common in all groups, and sanctioning is very difficult. Tranparency however helps to limit this

Dead-Locks

Political processes have many ways to re-align all actors of a group towards the common goal and to limit obstruction & corruption. To name a few: sanctioning laws, the free press (transparency of corruption), re-elections (giving power to people, who act more in the interest of the group).

Some systems, however, end up in dead-locks: A situation, where a few people control the power, the information & perceptions within the group. If the group is not able to get out of this dead-lock by itself or through a 'democratic process', an organized solution to the dead-lock may be difficult to impossible, and a 'revolution' may be the only option in this case.

The age of Transparency

The (almost) Disappearance of the Transparency cost.

Today, the world powers are fighting against Wikileaks, the Swiss government against the loss of the banking secrets, and governments around the globe against an increase in leaking information - This may be just the very beginning of a massive shift in our society: the beginning of a much greater transparency.

Responsible for this shift is mainly the massive decrease of the cost of transparency:

1. The Internet allows, that information is distributed from anywhere within seconds - making it impossible to 'control' the information.

2. Memory cost has dropped dramatically in the last years, so that potentially every piece of information can be kept potentially forever. The Internet doesn't forget anything.

3. A drone has today the size of a bird - soon, there will be drones of the size of a bug, a fly, or one day even the size of a mosquito. And the programming & steering of it will get very smart, so that potentially (technically) everyone can be observed anytime and anywhere.

.

It is up to us (and our politics), how we deal with that. Fact is, that soon, anyone, anywhere can be observed at almost no cost. Imagine what this means for board meetings, product development, secret service etc.

Many people fear the possibility of total control through the government - as the government may get the total information of everything.

A look into the past however shows a different picture: When cameras & broadcasting media was invented & became available, similar fear scenarios were there (in 1948: George Orwell 1984). But the contrary happened: Cameras and broadcasting, empowering the free press was one of the reason, why totalitarian system collapsed and why democratic system became more open.

If we get our political process right, the same will happen in future with the Internet.

The transparency paradox is not only true for small groups of people, but for states, governments, and even for markets - see for more details: Transparency (2002)

 

EXCLUSIVO: Brasileiros entrevistam Julian Assange

“Não somos uma organização exclusivamente da esquerda. Somos uma organização exclusivamente pela verdade e pela justiça”. Essa é apenas uma das muitas afirmações feitas pelo fundador e publisher do WikILeaks, Julian Assange, em entrevista aos internautas brasileiros.

A entrevista será publicada por diversos blogs, entre eles: Blog do Nassif, Viomundo, Nota de Rodapé, Maria Frô, Trezentos, Fazendo Média, FAlha de S Paulo, O Escrevinhador, Blog do Guaciara, Observatório do Direito à Comunicação, Blog da Dilma, Futepoca, Elaine Tavares, Blog do Mello, Altamiro Borges, Doutor Sujeira, Blog da Cidadania, Óleo do Diabo, Escreva Lola Escreva.

Julian, que enfrenta um processo na Suécia por crimes sexuais e atualmente vive sob monitoramento em uma mansão em Norfolk, na Inglaterra, concedeu a entrevista para internautas que enviaram perguntas a este blog.

Eu selecionei doze perguntas dentre as cerca de 350 que recebi – e não foi fácil. Acabei privilegiando perguntas muito repetidas, perguntas originais e aquelas que não querem calar. Infelizmente, nem todos foram contemplados. Todas as perguntas serão publicadas depois.

No final, os brasileiros não deram mole para o criador do WikiLeaks. Julian teve tempo de responder por escrito e aprofundar algumas questões.

O resultado é uma entrevista saborosa na qual ele explica por que trabalha com a grande mídia – sem deixar de criticá-la -, diz que gostaria de vir ao Brasil e sentencia: distribuir informação é distribuir poder.

Em tempo: se virasse filme de Hollywood, o editor do WikiLeaks diz que gostaria de ser interpretado por Will Smith.

A seguir, a entrevista.

 

Vários internautas - O WikiLeaks tem trabalhado com veículos da grande mídia – aqui no Brasil, Folha e Globo, vistos por muita gente como tendo uma linha política de direita. Mas além da concentração da comunicação, muitas vezes a grande mídia tem interesses próprios. Não é um contra-senso trabalhar com eles se o objetivo é democratizar a informação? Por que não trabalhar com blogs e mídias alternativas?

Por conta de restrições de recursos ainda não temos condições de avaliar o trabalho de milhares de indivíduos de uma vez. Em vez disso, trabalhamos com grupos de jornalistas ou de pesquisadores de direitos humanos que têm uma audiência significativa. Muitas vezes isso inclui veículos de mídia estabelecidos; mas também trabalhamos com alguns jornalistas individuais, veículos alternativos e organizações de ativistas, conforme a situação demanda e os recursos permitem.

Uma das funções primordiais da imprensa é obrigar os governos a prestar contas sobre o que fazem. No caso do Brasil, que tem um governo de esquerda, nós sentimos que era preciso um jornal de centro-direita para um melhor escrutínio dos governantes. Em outros países, usamos a equação inversa. O ideal seria podermos trabalhar com um veículo governista e um de oposição.

 

Marcelo Salles – Na sua opinião, o que é mais perigoso para a democracia: a manipulação de informações por governos ou a manipulação de informações por oligopólios de mídia?

A manipulação das informações pela mídia é mais perigosa, porque quando um governo as manipula em detrimento do público e a mídia é forte, essa manipulação não se segura por muito tempo. Quando a própria mídia se afasta do seu papel crítico, não somente os governos deixam de prestar contas como os interesses ou afiliações perniciosas da mídia e de seus donos permitem abusos por parte dos governos. O exemplo mais claro disso foi a Guerra do Iraque em 2003, alavancada pela grande mídia dos Estados Unidos.

 

Eduardo dos Anjos – Tenho acompanhado os vazamentos publicados pela sua ONG e até agora não encontrei nada que fosse relevante, me parece que é muito barulho por nada. Por que tanta gente ao mesmo tempo resolveu confiar em você? E por que devemos confiar em você?

O WikiLeaks tem uma história de quatro anos publicando documentos. Nesse período, até onde sabemos, nunca atestamos ser verdadeiro um documento falso. Além disso, nenhuma organização jamais nos acusou disso. Temos um histórico ilibado na distinção entre documentos verdadeiros e falsos, mas nós somos, é claro, apenas humanos e podemos um dia cometer um erro. No entanto até o momento temos o melhor histórico do mercado e queremos trabalhar duro para manter essa boa reputação.

Diferente de outras organizações de mídia que não têm padrões claros sobre o que vão aceitar e o que vão rejeitar, o WikiLeaks tem uma definição clara que permite às nossas fontes saber com segurança se vamos ou não publicar o seu material.

Aceitamos vazamentos de relevância diplomática, ética ou histórica, que sejam documentos oficiais classificados ou documentos suprimidos por alguma ordem judicial.

 

Vários internautas – Que tipo de mudança concreta pode acontecer como consequência do fenômeno Wikileaks nas práticas governamentais e empresariais? Pode haver uma mudança na relação de poder entre essas esferas e o público?

James Madison, que elaborou a Constituição americana, dizia que o conhecimento sempre irá governar sobre a ignorância. Então as pessoas que pretendem ser mestras de si mesmas têm de ter o poder que o conhecimento traz. Essa filosofia de Madison, que combina a esfera do conhecimento com a esfera da distribuição do poder, mostra as mudanças que acontecem quando o conhecimento é democratizado.

Os Estados e as megacorporações mantêm seu poder sobre o pensamento individual ao negar informação aos indivíduos. É esse vácuo de conhecimento que delineia quem são os mais poderosos dentro de um governo e quem são os mais poderosos dentro de uma corporação.

Assim, o livre fluxo de conhecimento de grupos poderosos para grupos ou indivíduos menos poderosos é também um fluxo de poder, e portanto uma força equalizadora e democratizante na sociedade.

 

Marcelo Träsel - Após o Cablegate, o Wikileaks ganhou muito poder. Declarações suas sobre futuros vazamentos já influenciaram a bolsa de valores e provavelmente influenciam a política dos países citados nesses alertas. Ao se tornar ele mesmo um poder, o Wikileaks não deveria criar mecanismos de auto-vigilância e auto-responsabilização frente à opinião pública mundial?

O WikiLeaks é uma das organizações globais mais responsáveis que existem.

Prestamos muito mais contas ao público do que governos nacionais, porque todo fruto do nosso trabalho é público. Somos uma organização essencialmente pública; não fazemos nada que não contribua para levar informação às pessoas.

O WikiLeaks é financiado pelo público, semana a semana, e assim eles “votam” com as suas carteiras.

Além disso, as fontes entregam documentos porque acreditam que nós vamos protegê-las e também vamos conseguir o maior impacto possível. Se em algum momento acharem que isso não é verdade, ou que estamos agindo de maneira antiética, as colaborações vão cessar.

O WikiLeaks é apoiado e defendido por milhares de pessoas generosas que oferecem voluntariamente o seu tempo, suas habilidades e seus recursos em nossa defesa. Dessa maneira elas também “votam” por nós todos os dias.

 

Daniel Ikenaga – Como você define o que deve ser um dado sigiloso?

Nós sempre ouvimos essa pergunta. Mas é melhor reformular da seguinte maneira: “quem deve ser obrigado por um Estado a esconder certo tipo de informação do resto da população?”

A resposta é clara: nem todo mundo no mundo e nem todas as pessoas em uma determinada posição. Assim, o seu médico deve ser responsável por manter a confidencialidade sobre seus dados na maioria das circunstâncias – mas não em todas.

 

Vários internautas – Em declarações ao Estado de São Paulo, você disse que pretendia usar o Brasil como uma das bases de atuação do WikiLeaks. Quais os planos futuros?  Se o governo brasileiro te oferecesse asilo político, você aceitaria?

Eu ficaria, é claro, lisonjeado se o Brasil oferecesse ao meu pessoal e a mim asilo político. Nós temos grande apoio do público brasileiro. Com base nisso e na característica independente do Brasil em relação a outros países, decidimos expandir nossa presença no país. Infelizmente eu, no momento, estou sob prisão domiciliar no inverno frio de Norfolk, na Inglaterra, e não posso me mudar para o belo e quente Brasil.

 

Vários internautas – Você teme pela sua vida? Há algum mecanismo de proteção especial para você? Caso venha a ser assassinado, o que vai acontecer com o WikiLeaks?

Nós estamos determinados a continuar a despeito das muitas ameaças que sofremos. Acreditamos profundamente na nossa missão e não nos intimidamos nem vamos nos intimidar pelas forças que estão contra nós.

Minha maior proteção é a ineficácia das ações contra mim. Por exemplo, quando eu estava recentemente na prisão por cerca de dez dias, as publicações de documentos continuaram.

Além disso, nós também distribuímos cópias do material que ainda não foi publicado por todo o mundo, então não é possível impedir as futuras publicações do WikiLeaks atacando o nosso pessoal.

 

Helena Vieira - Na sua opinião, qual a principal revelação do Cablegate? A sua visão de mundo, suas opiniões sobre nossa atual realidade mudou com as informações a que você teve acesso?

O Cablegate cobre quase todos os maiores acontecimentos, públicos e privados, de todos os países do mundo – então há muitas revelações importantíssimas, dependendo de onde você vive. A maioria dessas revelações ainda está por vir.

Mas, se eu tiver que escolher um só telegrama, entre os poucos que eu li até agora – tendo em mente que são 250 mil – seria aquele que pede aos diplomatas americanos obter senhas, DNAs, números de cartões de crédito e números dos vôos de funcionários de diversas organizações – entre elas a ONU.

Esse telegrama mostra uma ordem da CIA e da Agência de Segurança Nacional aos diplomatas americanos, revelando uma zona sombria no vasto aparato secreto de obtenção de inteligência pelos EUA.

 

Tarcísio Mender e Maiko Rafael Spiess Apesar de o WikiLeaks ter abalado as relações internacionais, o que acha da Time ter eleito Mark Zuckerberg o homem do ano? Não seria um paradoxo, você ser o “criminoso do ano”, enquanto Mark Zuckerberg é aplaudido e laureado?

A revista Time pode, claro, dar esse título a quem ela quiser. Mas para mim foi mais importante o fato de que o público votou em mim numa proporção vinte vezes maior do que no candidato escolhido pelo editor da Time. Eu ganhei o voto das pessoas, e não o voto das empresas de mídia multinacionais. Isso me parece correto.

Também gostei do que disse (o programa humorístico da TV americana) Saturday Night Live sobre a situação: “Eu te dou informações privadas sobre corporações de graça e sou um vilão. Mark Zuckerberg dá as suas informações privadas para corporações por dinheiro – e ele é o ‘Homem do Ano’.”

Nos bastidores, claro, as coisas foram mais interessantes, com a facção pró- Assange dentro da revista Time sendo apaziguada por uma capa bastante impressionante na edição de 13 de dezembro, o que abriu o caminho para a escolha conservadora de Zuckerberg algumas semanas depois.

 

Vinícius Juberte – Você se considera um homem de esquerda?

Eu vejo que há pessoas boas nos dois lados da política e definitivamente há pessoas más nos dois lados. Eu costumo procurar as pessoas boas e trabalhar por uma causa comum.

Agora, independente da tendência política, vejo que os políticos que deveriam controlar as agências de segurança e serviços secretos acabam, depois de eleitos, sendo gradualmente capturados e se tornando obedientes a eles.

Enquanto houver desequilíbrio de poder entre as pessoas e os governantes, nós estaremos do lado das pessoas.

Isso é geralmente associado com a retórica da esquerda, o que dá margem à visão de que somos uma organização exclusivamente de esquerda. Não é correto. Somos uma organização exclusivamente pela verdade e justiça – e isso se encontra em muitos lugares e tendências.

 

Ariely Barata – Hollywood divulgou que fará um filme sobre sua trajetória. Qual sua opinião sobre isso?

Hollywood pode produzir muitos filmes sobre o WikiLeaks, já que quase uma dúzia de livros está para ser publicada. Eu não estou envolvido em nenhuma produção de filme no momento.

Mas se nós vendermos os direitos de produção, eu vou exigir que meu papel seja feito pelo Will Smith. O nosso porta-voz, Kristinn Hrafnsson, seria interpretado por Samuel L Jackson, e a minha bela assistente por Halle Berry. E o filme poderia se chamar “WikiLeaks Filme Noire”.

 

Fonte: https://cartacapitalwikileaks.wordpress.com/

Responder à discussão

RSS

© 2020   Criado por Augusto de Franco.   Ativado por

Badges  |  Relatar um incidente  |  Termos de serviço