22 August 2010

Related: Wall Street Journal Secrecy: http://cryptome.org/0002/wsj-secrecy.htm

18 August 2010

Jeanne Whalen, Wall Street Journal reporter in London, has seen this file but doggedly persists in emailing and telephoning about Wikileaks. (She said she knew Cryptome always spills reporters' pule.) Cryptome suggested today she abandon the Wikileaks story as dead in the water, now just a fund-raising scam, no longer doing what it set out to do. She said the story is still popular. Then after a slew of questions about Julian Assange, anonymous postings about Wikileaks on Cryptome and ridiculous personal questions about John Young, she suggested Cryptome meet with a WSJ reporter in New York working on the story with her. We said no, face-to-faces are timewasters: ignorant questions and misquotes. Still, we said if she could arrange a meeting in Rupert Murdoch's 5th Avenue penthouse, we'd do a session just to see what changes had been made since John Young did work there for Laurence Rockefeller. We noted that such paid for Cryptome so it could be part of her story, and that ice-hearted interrogation in the billionaire digs would make fine detail, help practice to be managing editor. After confirming the Rockefeller listing on Natsios Young Architects, Ms. Whalen said she would forward the proposal.

And:

From: Mary Ann Jolley <Jolley.Mary.Ann[at]abc.net.au>
To: 'John Young' <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:22:00 +1000
Subject: RE: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

I really appreciate you getting back to me so promptly. Must say, I pretty much agree with you and I guess that is what we would like to bring out in our next piece. Really seems such a shame what's happened because the concept had so much potential. If we were to go ahead with the story would you be prepared to raise the issues you've raised in this email.

I also agree with you about Top Secret America. It certainly warrants time and effort. Any suggestions of people who might be good for background would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Mary Ann

________

Dear Mary Ann,

Yes, will raise those WL issues if you like.

The very best person on Top Secret America is Bill Arkin, co-author of the series. He has a huge amount of information based on many years of digging and writing.

As you have guessed, and as admitted, the WaPo curtailed the reporting in response to official and defense industry advertising demand, or just pure cowardice in face of in-town social and business pressure. Not the same newspaper it once was.

Bill has a lot more data than was published, a great deal more. He might be willing to share. I understand he is very generous. To be sure, he may be working on a book about the topic, or a couple of books.

Then Dana Priest if Bill is not accessible. Either or both of them could provide contacts willing to tell more, not least because their story did not get the backing of the WaPo it deserved. So, in short, I think Dana and Bill expect others to pick up where they left off.

A bank shot is the British investigative reporter, Duncan Campbell at ITV (not the Guardian reporter of the same name). Duncan has researched US military might for decades. A second bank shot is Nicky Hager, NZ, who is a colleague of Duncan's. These are fearless investigators not beholden to the US silence by bribery cartel. There are others pursuing the obsessive secretkeepers, and were at it when Assange and crew were in diapers.

Some of them could very well be aiding the youngsters. I didn't say that.

Regards,

John

16 August 2010

More Wikileaks Vapid Media Froth

__________

In response to a series of telephone calls and emails from Jeanne Whalen, Wall Street Journal, London:

Persistent questioning about Julian Assange, background, ambition, why Wikileaks, who is involved. Who is John Young, where do you work, what is your background, who is involved. What are your differences with Wikileaks. Clearly gathering material for another smear. So, provided the frightening story of Wikileaks' origin and what it is really up to, from the horses' mouths, URLS below.

From: "Whalen, Jeanne" <Jeanne.Whalen[at]wsj.com>
To: "'jya[at]pipeline.com'" <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:30:43 +0100
Subject:

Jeanne Whalen
The Wall Street Journal
10 Fleet Place
Limeburner Lane
London EC4M 7QN, U.K.
office: +44 207 842 9217
mobile: +44 7747 117 486

__________

10 August 2010

Jeanne Whalen
The Wall Street Journal
10 Fleet Place
Limeburner Lane
London EC4M 7QN, U.K.

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak2.htm

__________

10 August 2010

Jeanne Whalen
The Wall Street Journal
10 Fleet Place
Limeburner Lane
London EC4M 7QN, U.K.

Two files on WL funding and foundations:

http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-audit.htm

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-economics.htm

__________

11 August 2010

Jeanne Whalen
The Wall Street Journal
10 Fleet Place
Limeburner Lane
London EC4M 7QN, U.K.

Here is a fundamental outline of the cypherpunks propectus which inspires Wikileaks, Cryptome and several other initiatives:

Cyphernomicon, by Timothy May, 1994

http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/cyphernomicon.txt

This background has not been explored in the Wikileaks saga. And Wikileaks will never be understood without it.

In response to emails from Jonathan Kent, BBC World Service radio, London:

From: "Jonathan Kent" <jk[at]jonathankent.co.uk>
To: <cryptome[at]earthlink.net>
Subject: BBC enquiry
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:15:40 +0100

Dear John

I am planning to do a piece for Digital Planet, the technology programme on BBC World Service radio.

The feature would be looking at whistleblower and freedom of information websites and I hope to explore some of the issues that have arisen, particularly during the recent Wikileaks disclosure of US military documents.

Wikileaks has now attracted criticism from a number of human rights groups including Amnesty International over the possibility that the unredacted information may have revealed the identity of informers and put their lives at risk.

So I would like to delve into questions like –

what are the aims of FoI sites?

should we view them as an extension of the media or as something rather different?

what boundaries should there be (if any)?

Should information be filtered in any way by whistleblowing/FoI sites?

What concerns do you have about what you do?

How far do you feel that the benefits outweigh the risks?

I’d be very grateful for a chance to chat and see what you think before proceeding with the piece (skype would be good, my address is jonathankent )

Best wishes

Jonathan

Jonathan Kent
+44 20 8249 9021
+44 7981 803 144 (m)

__________

Dear Jonathan,

Speaking only for Cryptome and not the wide variety of FOI sites, many of which would puke at the following:

The aim is to publish material not readily available through conventional sources, free of editorial comment, authentication, verification or recommendation -- and without money demands.

Not an extension of media which editorializes, authenticates, verifies, recommends and in most cases charges money for access.

No boundaries. Those are set by narrow interests to profit from managed information flow.

No filtering. Way too much of that to justify payment for usually quite senseless, often ignorant, vetting.

Nothing to be concerned about, that is manufactured danger to foster anxiety and dependency on protectors of morals and mind.

There are no benefits and no risks. Those are hoary exaggerations valuable only to peddlers of insurance.

In short, we do provide neither news nor education, both debilitating forms of manipulated information.

Regards,

John

__________

From: "Jonathan Kent" <jk[at]jonathankent.co.uk>
To: "'John Young'" <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: BBC enquiry
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:23:05 +0100

Dear John

That’s for the most part a very clear manifesto – I wonder if we have our wires very slightly crossed on benefits, because most people would assume that you see a benefit in publishing the material you put out there – I hadn’t meant that in terms of personal benefit but more in wider benefit to society. In that sense is there benefit or do you simply see yourselves as no more putting that interpretation on what you do than a pipe considers itself to be providing a benefit by carrying water?

As this is a radio programme it would be most useful to do an audio interview at some point. Would you be amenable? There are a number of ways of doing that – via skype is one – another is to use the recording facility in the iPhone to record your half of the conversation and email the sound files….

Best wishes

Jonathan

Jonathan Kent
+44 20 8249 9021
+44 7981 803 144 (m)

__________

Dear Jonathan,

Benefit is a claim Cryptome would like to avoid due to the common abuse of that puffery. "Public benefit" is neither word, instead a lie.

Cryptome avoids claiming much of anything about its publications except lying and warning to be aware of deception -- a regular statement posted on the site. Keep this in mind if you choose to pursue this mission.

FOI is way over-rated as a public benefit. Several falsehoods there. NGO another. Privacy too. Don't even bother with master liars government, business, military, spies, secret-lovers, religions, royalty (ouch), bemedaled public servants and heroes and rebels and on down the perfidy hole.

Cynics are the worst of the worst. Comics are not all bad but most are.

If you must know the truth, I am a well-seasoned philosopher and theologian and bullshitter.

An insufferable optimist, I am happy to oblige with the recording medium of choice.

Regards,

John

__________

From: "Jonathan Kent" <jk[at]jonathankent.co.uk>
To: "'John Young'" <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: RE: BBC enquiry
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:48:04 +0100

Dear John

That's a refreshingly self effacing reply. Yes I would very much like to include you in the piece. You'll be heard along side a range of voices some of which may disagree with you. However I see my job as allowing people with different perspectives to make their case to listeners and leave it to the listeners to draw their own conclusions.

Before we record an interview I'd like to round up a few other people to take part. Once I know how the piece will be structured I'll get back to you and set up a time to interview you to best suit you.

I hope you'll think that what I end up with is fair and makes people think.

Best wishes

jonathan

Jonathan Kent
+44 20 8249 9021
+44 7981 803 144 (m)

In response to telephone and email requests for Russia Today interview:

From: "Kuznetsov Alexei V." <avkuznetsov[at]rttv.ru>
Subject: Russia Today TV - interview request
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:50:06 +0400

Dear Mr. Young, Russia Today, the first and only Russian TV channel that broadcasts news in English, Arabic and Spanish 24/7 would like to request an interview with you today, August 13, at 1400 EST. We would be honored to invite you to our NYC studio to talk live on our main newscast about WikiLeaks, the site’s credibility and possible theories on who might be standing behind the site’s owners. We appreciate the fact that you are a very busy person, but we also sincerely believe that someone with your reputation and expertise could do millions of our viewers and invaluable favor ­ to help take a more obbjective look at this highly controversial issue. I will be happy to discuss all relevant details either via email or over the phone. Please, let me know is you are available. Sincerely yours, Alexei Kuznetsov producer English News Planning desk RT Moscow office +7 916 801 9469 cell avkuznetsov[at]rttv.ru www.rt.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONFIDENTIALITY. The information contained in this transmission is intended exclusively for the proper use by the intended addressees and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any views expressed in this transmission are those of the individual sender, except where the transmission states otherwise and the sender being authorised appropriately. Any review, dissemination and other use of this information, as well as any action in reliance upon this information by persons and/or entities other than the intended addressees is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please note that no confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any miss-transmission. Note that we monitor e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to the above. </x-flowed>

From: "Kuznetsov Alexei V." <avkuznetsov[at]rttv.ru>
Subject: RT studio - studio
To: jya[at]pipeline.com
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:22:51 +0400

Dear John, I am booking the studio for 1400 EST in NYC. In the meantime, here are the studio details: 747 3rd Avenue Suite 3C New York, NY 10017 Coordination (producer) Number: 212-207-9271 I will call you back to confirm the reservation. And thank you very much, Sir, for agreeing to do this interview for us at such a short notice! We DO appreciate your readiness to help. Speak to you soon. Alexei.

From: "Kuznetsov Alexei V." <avkuznetsov[at]rttv.ru>
Subject: Russia Today - web link
To: jya[at]pipeline.com
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:56:39 +0400

Dear John, As I have promised, I am sending you a link to your live on our site. When you open the link, please, click on the "read more" sign below the printed text and the scroll down the page to watch the interview. You can then either download the video as a file, or embed it.

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-08-13/bradley-manning-wikileaks-protest.html

And once again, we are very grateful to you for your consent to do this interview with us and your readiness to share your ideas with our audience. May you have a nice day, Sir. Please, stay in touch. Alexei.

__________

From the URL:

John Young, a former WikiLeaks advisory board member and a critic of the website and its policies these days, explained how WikiLeaks does work and said it is not an easy task to determine the source of the leaks.

“There is a very large underground economy in stolen information using the internet for this purpose. WikiLeaks is a part of that – it’s a very small part. But the technology for selling stolen information is very large and very lucrative. Governments do it, cooperations do it, individuals do it. WikiLeaks basically sells stolen information,” he said.

“We actually don’t know where this latest leak comes from,” he stressed, adding “Right now there is too much disinformation being put out by WikiLeaks as well as by our Defense department.”

Watch the full interview with John Young

A inquired;

Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:10:33 -0400
From: A
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Can you confirm this ?

Can you confirm that this is indeed wikileaks and not just an imposter ?

http://flattr.com/profile/WikiLeaks

http://flattr.com/thing/42799/Afghanistan-War-Diary-2004-2009

__________

15 August 2010

The accounts may be legitimate but should not be used.

Any contact with Wikileaks, donations, web site visits and submissions, email, postal, telephone, radio, press conferences and releases, volunteers, face to face, is being tracked and recorded -- probably by multiple parties in order to harvest information for several uses.

Wikileaks does the same: it harvests information provided to it for open and covert uses. These are characeristics of secret operations: they are never what they seem to be, and are worse than public exposes about them. They cooperate in or themselves release superficial exposes to conceal deeper secrets.

All secret organizations are corrupt and most are criminal, that is why secrecy was invented and remains its primary necessity.

That's what Wikileaks set out to do from the beginning, asymmetrical public service, more taken secretly than given openly, following the model of all public service organizations.

Public service and servants are never to be trusted, donor and believer beware. But it is easy to be one, so do it yourself.

Amen.

John

Response to an email request from Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

From: Mary Ann Jolley <Jolley.Mary.Ann[at]abc.net.au>
To: "'cryptome[at]earthlink.net'" <cryptome[at]earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:50:00 +1000
Subject: Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Dear John

I’m with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s international affairs program, Foreign Correspondent, and am currently looking into the possibility of filming a story about Wikileaks and its next big leak. We broadcast a story at the end of June about the organisation so this next one would be a follow up. Our website is www.abc.net.au/foreign .

Wondering if it may be possible to have a chat with you over the phone. At this stage I’m only looking for background information. As I’m based in Sydney and given the time difference, would it be alright to give you a call one afternoon/evening your time?

Very much look forward to hearing from you.

Cheers

Mary Ann

Mary Ann Jolley
ABC TV
+ 61 402 407 238

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.

__________

16 August 2010

Dear Mary Ann,

I hope you will understand that the Wikileaks affair is currently lacking worthwhile content. Nothing new is being provided by Wikileaks or the media, instead only an endless recycling of bombast by Wikileaks and empty idiocy by the media. Wikileaks is dead until it Wikileaks returns to doing what it did for three years, stopped that admirable public service to become a celebrity publicity machine aiming to raise money for nothing. The Afghan releases are fantastically overwrought, much ado about nothing. I do not wish to be trivialized by participating in nonsense, and you might reconsider continuing the charade.

There is a much superior story in the Washington Post series, "Top Secret America," with genuine substance awaiting further investigation in Australia's complicity. Wikileaks is silly timewasting by comparison, indeed may be wittingly or unwittingly being used to divert attention from quite grave matters which truly threaten the public's well-being and safety.

Sorry to say, Wikileaks has become a financial fraud posing as a noble service, a characteristic of criminal NGOs.

It may be that the good deed can be resuscitated, I look forward to that most worthy prospect.

Best regards,

John