Friam

boycotting Amazon

Classic

List

Threaded

35 messages Options

Nick Thompson

boycotting Amazon

This would be like boycotting oxygen for me, but I think it should be considered.

Daniel Ellsberg Says Boycott Amazon

Posted By Daniel Ellsberg On December 2, 2010 @ 10:23 pm In News | 394 Comments

Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear–and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses–to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com ^[1] that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg

Article printed from Antiwar.com Blog: http://www.antiwar.com/blog

URL to article: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/12/02/daniel-ellsberg-says-boycott-amazon/

URLs in this post:

[1] antiwar.com: http://antiwar.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

Even me, a sort of radical Anarcho-Libertarian, am left a bit dazed and confused by the whole WikiLeaks thing.

I'm very much in favor of the general principle of WikiLeaks, though I can't say I've assessed the implications carefully enough to be a blind-faith supporter. I hope there will be more discussion on the topic here. I'm very surprised there's been less discussion of WikiLeaks before today (let the mail flurries begin!) than there has been.

I'm right there with Doug, feeling motivated to read most anything someone as big and pug-ugly as Big Brother tries to prohibit me from reading. On the other hand when I worked for the Government (through a DOE Contract to UC, then Bloody Bechtel), I understood that accessing such information on my US Gov't owned equipment was inappropriate and likely actionable. I also understood when I held various security clearances that I had agreed to protect anything declared to be classified from disclosure, so why try to obtain access to stuff for which I supposedly had no "need to know", and certainly why would I corrupt my own computers, etc. with such information by downloading it to read? The whole structure of government secrets is questionable, but not trivial in any case, and I'm glad to be free of all that entanglement.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I give Amazon the right to decide they don't want to get embroiled in this.   I might want to call them chickens but I don't think I get to decide for them what are good business practices.   And in particular, what their legal and practical liabilities might be for hosting something as acutely controversial as this.

In reading Ellsberg here, "aspire to China’s control of information" seems hyperbolic. I do agree that WikiLeaks could provide an important resource for Whistleblowers, but comparing it to China's attempts seems overstated.

A better boycott, if we are 100% in support of WikiLeaks would be to boycott anyone who *won't* host them... anyone in the business of web hosting who *won't* provide service to them....   dial up your ISP and tell them you want to mirror WikiLeaks on their infrastructure and then fire them if they say no.   Amazon (and PayPal and ???) have tried to provide them service and the heat got too much.   It will be various minor (and major?) heroes who will ultimately step up. Has WikiLeaks tried to get Google into the fray with Big Brother?

I've not looked closely enough at WikiLeaks, their goals, methods, and what they've got of leaks to know how much I trust them or even how interested I am in their information.   What is the level of experience with them amongst this group ? Reasoned ideas and opinions about just where the line is drawn (if anywhere) on freedom of information and the right of governments to try to keep secrets?

Nick> This would be like boycotting oxygen for me, but I think it should be considered.

While I don't support the boycott (yet), it might be a good opportunity to look at the implications of becoming this dependent on Amazon (or Google or Microsoft or Apple or Yahoo or ...) and the implications of what you will do if they go weird on you.

At 17.8 years old I'd had to contemplate the strong possibility that I would have to forsake (leave and not return to) the country where I'd been born and bred to avoid the ethical conundrums of signing up for selective service when I was not sure I could allow myself to be selected and then if selected, not sure I could serve, and then if I served, not sure I could serve wholeheartedly.

Maybe we need to look as closely at our "addictions" to various corporations as many did at the Vietnam War (and other equally critical causes of yore). I'm not saying "boycott", just evaluate and act accordingly?

If I had a document disclosing how anyone with a HS grasp of biology could obtain, culture and dispense extra-deadly and virulent strains of the Ebola virus... maybe the entire DNA sequence of same... should I offer them to WikiLeaks? Should they accept and publish them? Should you read them?

If I had a document outing every "spy" and informant for the US government (or the whole western world), what then? What would Valerie Plame (lives here in Santa Fe, pushes high end real-estate I think) say?

I like the idea of no official state secrets, but It is a tangled web, and it is hard to "unstir" the cream once poured into the Earl Grey...

Maybe with elements like WikiLeaks out there, maybe just beyond the reach of any Government (or multinational?) the dependence on state secrets and the inherent abuse of power they support will wane?

Carry on!

- Steve

Daniel Ellsberg Says Boycott Amazon

Posted By Daniel Ellsberg On December 2, 2010 @ 10:23 pm In News | 394 Comments

Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear–and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses–to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com ^[1] that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg

Article printed from Antiwar.com Blog: http://www.antiwar.com/blog

URL to article: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/12/02/daniel-ellsberg-says-boycott-amazon/

URLs in this post:

[1] antiwar.com: http://antiwar.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick> This would be like boycotting oxygen for me, but I think it should be considered.

Daniel Ellsberg Says Boycott Amazon

Posted By Daniel Ellsberg On December 2, 2010 @ 10:23 pm In News | 394 Comments

Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear–and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses–to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com ^[1] that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg

Article printed from Antiwar.com Blog: http://www.antiwar.com/blog

URL to article: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/12/02/daniel-ellsberg-says-boycott-amazon/

URLs in this post:

[1] antiwar.com: http://antiwar.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

And my biggest bugaboo with conspiracy theorists... what if your favorite conspiracy theory is a conspiracy in itself?

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/12/could-israel-be-using-wikileaks-to-prepare-us-for-air-strike-against-iran/

I hate to stir the pot more, but it is a credible question as to whether WikiLeaks might have it's own agenda beyond journalism and journalistic freedom? I'm not promoting any specific (mis)use but even if we can somehow verify the relative authenticity of the docs being drizzled out to us, can we understand/verify the editorial decisions of which ones to open up when? And couldn't the selective release of "truth" be it's own manipulation?

Is there a game theoretic model to describe this?

Even me, a sort of radical Anarcho-Libertarian, am left a bit dazed and confused by the whole WikiLeaks thing.

I'm very much in favor of the general principle of WikiLeaks, though I can't say I've assessed the implications carefully enough to be a blind-faith supporter. I hope there will be more discussion on the topic here. I'm very surprised there's been less discussion of WikiLeaks before today (let the mail flurries begin!) than there has been.

I'm right there with Doug, feeling motivated to read most anything someone as big and pug-ugly as Big Brother tries to prohibit me from reading. On the other hand when I worked for the Government (through a DOE Contract to UC, then Bloody Bechtel), I understood that accessing such information on my US Gov't owned equipment was inappropriate and likely actionable. I also understood when I held various security clearances that I had agreed to protect anything declared to be classified from disclosure, so why try to obtain access to stuff for which I supposedly had no "need to know", and certainly why would I corrupt my own computers, etc. with such information by downloading it to read? The whole structure of government secrets is questionable, but not trivial in any case, and I'm glad to be free of all that entanglement.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure I give Amazon the right to decide they don't want to get embroiled in this.   I might want to call them chickens but I don't think I get to decide for them what are good business practices.   And in particular, what their legal and practical liabilities might be for hosting something as acutely controversial as this.

In reading Ellsberg here, "aspire to China’s control of information" seems hyperbolic. I do agree that WikiLeaks could provide an important resource for Whistleblowers, but comparing it to China's attempts seems overstated.

A better boycott, if we are 100% in support of WikiLeaks would be to boycott anyone who *won't* host them... anyone in the business of web hosting who *won't* provide service to them....   dial up your ISP and tell them you want to mirror WikiLeaks on their infrastructure and then fire them if they say no.   Amazon (and PayPal and ???) have tried to provide them service and the heat got too much.   It will be various minor (and major?) heroes who will ultimately step up. Has WikiLeaks tried to get Google into the fray with Big Brother?

I've not looked closely enough at WikiLeaks, their goals, methods, and what they've got of leaks to know how much I trust them or even how interested I am in their information.   What is the level of experience with them amongst this group ? Reasoned ideas and opinions about just where the line is drawn (if anywhere) on freedom of information and the right of governments to try to keep secrets?

Nick> This would be like boycotting oxygen for me, but I think it should be considered.

While I don't support the boycott (yet), it might be a good opportunity to look at the implications of becoming this dependent on Amazon (or Google or Microsoft or Apple or Yahoo or ...) and the implications of what you will do if they go weird on you.

At 17.8 years old I'd had to contemplate the strong possibility that I would have to forsake (leave and not return to) the country where I'd been born and bred to avoid the ethical conundrums of signing up for selective service when I was not sure I could allow myself to be selected and then if selected, not sure I could serve, and then if I served, not sure I could serve wholeheartedly.

Maybe we need to look as closely at our "addictions" to various corporations as many did at the Vietnam War (and other equally critical causes of yore). I'm not saying "boycott", just evaluate and act accordingly?

If I had a document disclosing how anyone with a HS grasp of biology could obtain, culture and dispense extra-deadly and virulent strains of the Ebola virus... maybe the entire DNA sequence of same... should I offer them to WikiLeaks? Should they accept and publish them? Should you read them?

If I had a document outing every "spy" and informant for the US government (or the whole western world), what then? What would Valerie Plame (lives here in Santa Fe, pushes high end real-estate I think) say?

I like the idea of no official state secrets, but It is a tangled web, and it is hard to "unstir" the cream once poured into the Earl Grey...

Maybe with elements like WikiLeaks out there, maybe just beyond the reach of any Government (or multinational?) the dependence on state secrets and the inherent abuse of power they support will wane?

Carry on!

- Steve
Daniel Ellsberg Says Boycott Amazon

Posted By Daniel Ellsberg On December 2, 2010 @ 10:23 pm In News | 394 Comments

Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear–and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses–to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com ^[1] that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg

Article printed from Antiwar.com Blog: http://www.antiwar.com/blog

URL to article: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/12/02/daniel-ellsberg-says-boycott-amazon/

URLs in this post:

[1] antiwar.com: http://antiwar.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Bill Eldridge

Re: boycotting Amazon

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Exactly why should we boycott a vendor when he's implementing
what the public has agreed is a good thing, to bipartisan acclaim?

So we've failed to get our preferences communicated to our elected
representatives, so much so that "our guys" are implementing porn searches
in airports, assisting coverup of widescale mortgage fraud, and dismantling of
Social Security.

Has anyone advocating a boycott of a vendor actually written their representatives
to suggest, like Ron Paul, that Wikileaks is actually just providing needed transparency?
Have they gone to a site like "DownWithTyrrany" to see who the alternative
progressive candidates are, and then tell their Democratic representatives that that's
who they're voting for if the Blue Dogs don't get some liberal spirit and fast?

Just one small detail from Wikileaks was how we hammered on the Spanish judicial system
to drop investigation and indictments of torture (that would affect Cheney, Bush, et al).
If we can hammer a sovereign state like Spain into submission, one belonging to the supposedly
powerful European Union, why should we expect a company like Amazon to do our dirty work
for us? And why should we expect Bezos to be successful?

And it wasn't long ago that we complained about telecommunications companies doing illegal
surveillance under Bush's request - and then Democrats got control of both houses and did
absolutely squat about it. And then we elected a President whose motto is "Don't Look Back,
Look Forward". So mass interception of US communications is now approved de facto,
as is our 10 year strategy towards terrorism and war in Afghanistan.

So if the majority of Democratic and Republican representatives are behind squashing the rights
of Wikileaks to exist, I think we need a better proxy in this fight than Amazon. Sure, we can
try to enlist Bezos' support, but making him the fall guy, instead of that Lieberman fellow
who's managed to hold on to prime Home Security position *DESPITE* actively campaigning
with McCain and against Obama and speaking at the Republican National Convention?

Sorry if this wanders, but perhaps Bezos doesn't want a trumped up sexual charge facing him
like Assange has now - what's our real solution to a very real problem, and not just a bandaid
that makes us feel good despite being powerless?

And to pick one item out of Ellsberg, what did antiwar.com do to boycott Obama when he
upped the number of troops going into Afghanistan?

On 12/6/2010 5:09 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

This would be like boycotting oxygen for me, but I think it should be considered.

Daniel Ellsberg Says Boycott Amazon

Posted By Daniel Ellsberg On December 2, 2010 @ 10:23 pm In News | 394 Comments

Open letter to Amazon.com Customer Service:

December 2, 2010

I’m disgusted by Amazon’s cowardice and servility in abruptly terminating today its hosting of the Wikileaks website, in the face of threats from Senator Joe Lieberman and other Congressional right-wingers. I want no further association with any company that encourages legislative and executive officials to aspire to China’s control of information and deterrence of whistle-blowing.

For the last several years, I’ve been spending over $100 a month on new and used books from Amazon. That’s over. I ask Amazon to terminate immediately my membership in Amazon Prime and my Amazon credit card and account, to delete my contact and credit information from their files and to send me no more notices.

I understand that many other regular customers feel as I do and are responding the same way. Good: the broader and more immediate the boycott, the better. I hope that these others encourage their contact lists to do likewise and to let Amazon know exactly why they’re shifting their business. I’ve asked friends today to suggest alternatives, and I’ll be exploring service from Powell’s Books, Half-Price Books, Biblio and others.

So far Amazon has spared itself the further embarrassment of trying to explain its action openly. This would be a good time for Amazon insiders who know and perhaps can document the political pressures that were brought to bear–and the details of the hasty kowtowing by their bosses–to leak that information. They can send it to Wikileaks (now on servers outside the US), to mainstream journalists or bloggers, or perhaps to sites like antiwar.com ^[1] that have now appropriately ended their book-purchasing association with Amazon.

Yours (no longer),
Daniel Ellsberg

Article printed from Antiwar.com Blog: http://www.antiwar.com/blog

URL to article: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/12/02/daniel-ellsberg-says-boycott-amazon/

URLs in this post:

[1] antiwar.com: http://antiwar.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

Administrator

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

On Dec 6, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> ...

As usual, nicely thought out and articulated.

For me its simple. I like WikiLeaks and the counter pressure they bring to bear. Not all corporations, politicians, militaries, labs, and so on are evil, but lately they've been throwing their power around way too much. And WL helps create a balance of power.

It is absurd to argue that WL is putting solders and others "at risk". They have been put there by their govt.

But I doubt Amazon and other ISPs feel they can afford the mess they'd get into by offering WL an account.

So what to do? My first approach would be Peer to Peer. That removes the debate from the large and powerful to the citizenry. Our first question then would be "would I give 1% of my computer?". For me the answer is "yes".

OK then, how? Well, the easiest would be Torrents. I'd simply subscribe to a set of Torrents that were encrypted archives that the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) or WL would sponsor (RSS, name convention, etc). This would massively replicate the archives, making it pretty difficult to crush, yet not "publish" the content in the clear until judged appropriate by WL. We'd then need to create a P2P web tech of some sort, possibly built on top of torrents, to publish the material WL deems ready for the public.

I'd also ask EFF to vet WL. Why? I have several friends associated with them, and although a bit on the fringe, I think they'd do a good job of calibrating WL, and possibly keeping them within bounds of sanity. If not EFF, then Lawrence Lessig.

Let the people decide!

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

If you want to add your site to the (currently) 507 sites mirroring WikiLeaks, just follow the instructions here:

http://www.wikileaks.ch/mass-mirror.html

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Dec 6, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> ...

As usual, nicely thought out and articulated.

For me its simple. I like WikiLeaks and the counter pressure they bring to bear. Not all corporations, politicians, militaries, labs, and so on are evil, but lately they've been throwing their power around way too much. And WL helps create a balance of power.

It is absurd to argue that WL is putting solders and others "at risk". They have been put there by their govt.

But I doubt Amazon and other ISPs feel they can afford the mess they'd get into by offering WL an account.

So what to do? My first approach would be Peer to Peer. That removes the debate from the large and powerful to the citizenry. Our first question then would be "would I give 1% of my computer?". For me the answer is "yes".

OK then, how? Well, the easiest would be Torrents. I'd simply subscribe to a set of Torrents that were encrypted archives that the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) or WL would sponsor (RSS, name convention, etc). This would massively replicate the archives, making it pretty difficult to crush, yet not "publish" the content in the clear until judged appropriate by WL. We'd then need to create a P2P web tech of some sort, possibly built on top of torrents, to publish the material WL deems ready for the public.

I'd also ask EFF to vet WL. Why? I have several friends associated with them, and although a bit on the fringe, I think they'd do a good job of calibrating WL, and possibly keeping them within bounds of sanity. If not EFF, then Lawrence Lessig.

Let the people decide!

-- Owen

Scholand, Andrew J

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

Well, before you mirror Wikifreaks, you may want to read this from BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766:

'A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

...

It inevitably prompts the question as to exactly what positive benefit Wikileaks was intending in releasing this document, he adds.

Former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind condemned the move.

"This is further evidence that they have been generally irresponsible, bordering on criminal," Sir Malcolm said. "This is the kind of information terrorists are interested in knowing."'

Cheers,
Andy
________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:32 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

If you want to add your site to the (currently) 507 sites mirroring WikiLeaks, just follow the instructions here:

http://www.wikileaks.ch/mass-mirror.html

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> ...

As usual, nicely thought out and articulated.

For me its simple. I like WikiLeaks and the counter pressure they bring to bear. Not all corporations, politicians, militaries, labs, and so on are evil, but lately they've been throwing their power around way too much. And WL helps create a balance of power.

It is absurd to argue that WL is putting solders and others "at risk". They have been put there by their govt.

But I doubt Amazon and other ISPs feel they can afford the mess they'd get into by offering WL an account.

So what to do? My first approach would be Peer to Peer. That removes the debate from the large and powerful to the citizenry. Our first question then would be "would I give 1% of my computer?". For me the answer is "yes".

OK then, how? Well, the easiest would be Torrents. I'd simply subscribe to a set of Torrents that were encrypted archives that the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) or WL would sponsor (RSS, name convention, etc). This would massively replicate the archives, making it pretty difficult to crush, yet not "publish" the content in the clear until judged appropriate by WL. We'd then need to create a P2P web tech of some sort, possibly built on top of torrents, to publish the material WL deems ready for the public.

I'd also ask EFF to vet WL. Why? I have several friends associated with them, and although a bit on the fringe, I think they'd do a good job of calibrating WL, and possibly keeping them within bounds of sanity. If not EFF, then Lawrence Lessig.

Let the people decide!

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

James Steiner

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In a similar vein, where, exactly, is the huge, classified secret regarding the revelation that blowing up the Ningbo port in south-eastern China will have a large negative impact on global trade. Or that taking out an anti-snake venom factory in Australia will have a significant impact on our ability to treat snake bites?

Even More Cynically,

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

We should all be thankful that this exchange is occurring on FRIAM, rather than on Facebook. Else we would have endangered our job prospects.

I'm not making this up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html?view=print

Big Brother is watching. Be afraid, be very afraid.

George Orwell was 26 years late, but he was dead-nuts on.

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

In a similar vein, where, exactly, is the huge, classified secret regarding the revelation that blowing up the Ningbo port in south-eastern China will have a large negative impact on global trade. Or that taking out an anti-snake venom factory in Australia will have a significant impact on our ability to treat snake bites?

Even More Cynically,

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

==

Owen Densmore

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

Administrator

I propose a beer conversation at cowgirl or second street soon to discuss this. I hope the beer is not bugged.

BTW: one concern I've had lately is the large number of folks converting to gmail. What a target for the Feds! And just how much resistance would Google put up? Can you say Zero?

-- Owen

On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

We should all be thankful that this exchange is occurring on FRIAM, rather than on Facebook. Else we would have endangered our job prospects.

I'm not making this up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html?view=print

Big Brother is watching. Be afraid, be very afraid.

George Orwell was 26 years late, but he was dead-nuts on.

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

In a similar vein, where, exactly, is the huge, classified secret regarding the revelation that blowing up the Ningbo port in south-eastern China will have a large negative impact on global trade. Or that taking out an anti-snake venom factory in Australia will have a significant impact on our ability to treat snake bites?

Even More Cynically,

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

==

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by James Steiner

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? The people in the government justify secrecy by one standard and then use it for whatever they can get away with, and you can get away with a lot if no one is ever allowed to see what you've done. So they claim strenuously that exposing secrets will endanger people, yet the exposed cables show them suppressing investigation of a mistaken extraordinary rendition which put an innocent person in the hands of torturers.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html

Because "they" decided that it was better that the German car salesman just take a few cattle prods in the nads for the freedom team rather than admit that "they" might have made criminal mistakes by kidnapping a citizen of an ally and whisking him off to Afganistan for information extraction.

I watched Brazil again a month or two ago: it all starts with a swatted fly mutating someone's name into someone else's name, and it ends with tidying up all the loose ends that might interfere with the operation of an essential government service.

We've been through multiple reviews of the abuses of secrecy in this country, and the net result is that the amount of stuff which is kept from public eyes just keeps on growing. Got a check or balance on that trend?

-- rec --

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:
In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Why worry about gmail? Worry about the NSA backdoor that Intel added to the x86 microcode years ago, until you get tired, then go back to your regularly scheduled activities.

-- rec --

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

BTW: one concern I've had lately is the large number of folks converting to gmail. What a target for the Feds! And just how much resistance would Google put up? Can you say Zero?

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

I can't help but notice that the majority of our hard core FRIAM pontificators have remained silent on this one. I wonder why: Could it be that they're not not interested? The topic is not abstract enough? Afraid that Big Brother will hear them? Weren't aware of WikiLeaks?

Over on another one of my social networks I at least had one person regurgitate the Government Spin Attempt of "so many people were put in danger by having this information released", but the good news is that it was immediately pointed out that the claim that the release of this information has put people in danger has been debunked several times. The US government knew the leak occurred several months before WikiLeaks published the information. There was time to get personnel out of harm's way. It could be said that the release itself (by Bradley Manning or whoever) did potentially put people in danger, but WikiLeaks is not to blame for that.

FRIAM's general majority silence on this is curious...

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? The people in the government justify secrecy by one standard and then use it for whatever they can get away with, and you can get away with a lot if no one is ever allowed to see what you've done. So they claim strenuously that exposing secrets will endanger people, yet the exposed cables show them suppressing investigation of a mistaken extraordinary rendition which put an innocent person in the hands of torturers.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html

Because "they" decided that it was better that the German car salesman just take a few cattle prods in the nads for the freedom team rather than admit that "they" might have made criminal mistakes by kidnapping a citizen of an ally and whisking him off to Afganistan for information extraction.

I watched Brazil again a month or two ago: it all starts with a swatted fly mutating someone's name into someone else's name, and it ends with tidying up all the loose ends that might interfere with the operation of an essential government service.

We've been through multiple reviews of the abuses of secrecy in this country, and the net result is that the amount of stuff which is kept from public eyes just keeps on growing. Got a check or balance on that trend?

-- rec --

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:
In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

Bill Eldridge

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by Scholand, Andrew J

Marcie at emptywheel.firedoglake.com addressed this earlier today -
somehow no cable trunks ending in the Middle East on this list, nor
in Africa (despite the new big cable going around the continent?
Or the 4 cables going into Egypt that were accidentally cut to major
outages last year?)

All of this information should still be viewed cautiously -
I still wonder if the government wants this info out - the
last dump bolstered support for an attack on Iran without
giving up too much in embarrassment.

----- PŮVODNÍ ZPRÁVA -----
Od: "Scholand, Andrew J" <[hidden email]>
Komu: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[hidden email]>
Předmět: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate
Datum: 6.12.2010 - 18:54:30

> Well, before you mirror Wikifreaks, you may want
> to read this from BBC News:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766:
>
> 'A long list of key facilities around the world
> that the US describes as vital to its national
> security has been released by Wikileaks.
>
> In February 2009 the State Department asked all US
> missions abroad to list all installations whose
> loss could critically affect US national security.
>
> The list includes pipelines, communication and
> transport hubs.
>
> ...
>
> It inevitably prompts the question as to exactly
> what positive benefit Wikileaks was intending in
> releasing this document, he adds.
>
> Former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind
> condemned the move.
>
> "This is further evidence that they have been
> generally irresponsible, bordering on criminal,"
> Sir Malcolm said. "This is the kind of information
> terrorists are interested in knowing."'
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email]
> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas
> Roberts [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:32 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't
> prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.
>
> If you want to add your site to the (currently)
> 507 sites mirroring WikiLeaks, just follow the
> instructions here:
>
> http://www.wikileaks.ch/mass-mirror.html
>
> --Doug
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Owen Densmore
> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> > ...
>
> As usual, nicely thought out and articulated.
>
> For me its simple. I like WikiLeaks and the
> counter pressure they bring to bear. Not all
> corporations, politicians, militaries, labs, and
> so on are evil, but lately they've been throwing
> their power around way too much. And WL helps
> create a balance of power.
>
> It is absurd to argue that WL is putting solders
> and others "at risk". They have been put there by
> their govt.
>
> But I doubt Amazon and other ISPs feel they can
> afford the mess they'd get into by offering WL an
> account.
>
> So what to do? My first approach would be Peer to
> Peer. That removes the debate from the large and
> powerful to the citizenry. Our first question
> then would be "would I give 1% of my computer?".
> For me the answer is "yes".
>
> OK then, how? Well, the easiest would be
> Torrents. I'd simply subscribe to a set of
> Torrents that were encrypted archives that the EFF
> (Electronic Frontier Foundation) or WL would
> sponsor (RSS, name convention, etc). This would
> massively replicate the archives, making it pretty
> difficult to crush, yet not "publish" the content
> in the clear until judged appropriate by WL. We'd
> then need to create a P2P web tech of some sort,
> possibly built on top of torrents, to publish the
> material WL deems ready for the public.
>
> I'd also ask EFF to vet WL. Why? I have several
> friends associated with them, and although a bit
> on the fringe, I think they'd do a good job of
> calibrating WL, and possibly keeping them within
> bounds of sanity. If not EFF, then Lawrence
> Lessig.
>
> Let the people decide!
>
> -- Owen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's
> College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>

Paul Paryski

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

In my opinion, based on personal observation, the political and economic system of the United States is quickly declining and darkly dystrophic as has been the case with all "empires". The information provided by WikiLeaks, although not at all surprising, and the reaction of the government to WikiLeaks, only confirms my belief. WikiLeaks is providing a needed view into the mindset of those who govern and the system they represent.

Sometimes it seems that humanity is self-organizing for self destruction.

Long live WikiLeaks!

cheers(?) Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

FRIAM's general majority silence on this is curious...

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? The people in the government justify secrecy by one standard and then use it for whatever they can get away with, and you can get away with a lot if no one is ever allowed to see what you've done. So they claim strenuously that exposing secrets will endanger people, yet the exposed cables show them suppressing investigation of a mistaken extraordinary rendition which put an innocent person in the hands of torturers.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html

Because "they" decided that it was better that the German car salesman just take a few cattle prods in the nads for the freedom team rather than admit that "they" might have made criminal mistakes by kidnapping a citizen of an ally and whisking him off to Afganistan for information extraction.

I watched Brazil again a month or two ago: it all starts with a swatted fly mutating someone's name into someone else's name, and it ends with tidying up all the loose ends that might interfere with the operation of an essential government service.

We've been through multiple reviews of the abuses of secrecy in this country, and the net result is that the amount of stuff which is kept from public eyes just keeps on growing. Got a check or balance on that trend?

-- rec --

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

I like the idea that wikileaks is a CIA plot.

It screeches the mind to a halt. You can’t even trust your distrust anymore.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Paryski
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:10 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

Sometimes it seems that humanity is self-organizing for self destruction.

Long live WikiLeaks!

cheers(?) Paul

FRIAM's general majority silence on this is curious...

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html

-- rec --

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:
In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

^Like

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

I like the idea that wikileaks is a CIA plot.

It screeches the mind to a halt. You can’t even trust your distrust anymore.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Paryski
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:10 PM
To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.
In my opinion, based on personal observation, the political and economic system of the United States is quickly declining and darkly dystrophic as has been the case with all "empires". The information provided by WikiLeaks, although not at all surprising, and the reaction of the government to WikiLeaks, only confirms my belief. WikiLeaks is providing a needed view into the mindset of those who govern and the system they represent.

Sometimes it seems that humanity is self-organizing for self destruction.

Long live WikiLeaks!
cheers(?) Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.
I can't help but notice that the majority of our hard core FRIAM pontificators have remained silent on this one. I wonder why: Could it be that they're not not interested? The topic is not abstract enough? Afraid that Big Brother will hear them? Weren't aware of WikiLeaks?

Over on another one of my social networks I at least had one person regurgitate the Government Spin Attempt of "so many people were put in danger by having this information released", but the good news is that it was immediately pointed out that the claim that the release of this information has put people in danger has been debunked several times. The US government knew the leak occurred several months before WikiLeaks published the information. There was time to get personnel out of harm's way. It could be said that the release itself (by Bradley Manning or whoever) did potentially put people in danger, but WikiLeaks is not to blame for that.

FRIAM's general majority silence on this is curious...

--Doug
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, that's the issue, isn't it? The people in the government justify secrecy by one standard and then use it for whatever they can get away with, and you can get away with a lot if no one is ever allowed to see what you've done. So they claim strenuously that exposing secrets will endanger people, yet the exposed cables show them suppressing investigation of a mistaken extraordinary rendition which put an innocent person in the hands of torturers.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html

Because "they" decided that it was better that the German car salesman just take a few cattle prods in the nads for the freedom team rather than admit that "they" might have made criminal mistakes by kidnapping a citizen of an ally and whisking him off to Afganistan for information extraction.

I watched Brazil again a month or two ago: it all starts with a swatted fly mutating someone's name into someone else's name, and it ends with tidying up all the loose ends that might interfere with the operation of an essential government service.

We've been through multiple reviews of the abuses of secrecy in this country, and the net result is that the amount of stuff which is kept from public eyes just keeps on growing. Got a check or balance on that trend?

-- rec --

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Paul Paryski

Re: WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

There are those that say the leaks about the Saudis and other Arab states calling for military intervention in Iran were deliberate.

But this being said, it is highly unlikely that WikiLeaks will change any policies.

thanks, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Dec 6, 2010 1:18 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

I like the idea that wikileaks is a CIA plot.

It screeches the mind to a halt. You can’t even trust your distrust anymore.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Paryski
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:10 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WikiLeaks, US Gov't prohibition, Corporate Boycotts, etc.

Sometimes it seems that humanity is self-organizing for self destruction.

Long live WikiLeaks!

cheers(?) Paul

FRIAM's general majority silence on this is curious...

--Doug

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-the-el.html

-- rec --

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:04 AM, James Steiner <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scholand, Andrew J <[hidden email]> wrote:

In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Well, considering the tendency to slap "national security" and "classified" labels on everything, I'd expect the list also includes a fair number of vending machine suppliers and escort services.

Cynically,

~~James

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org