Wikileaks Updated

June 25, 2010

Hail to the whistleblowers

Whistleblowers like those at WikiLeaks make huge sacrifices and are a vital last resort to check the powers of government
James Madison (drafter of the US first amendment) once wrote that “government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both”.
This is certainly true of Afghanistan, where the US-led coalition has been able to avoid a true audit of the impact of its presence via tight control of the media combined with manipulated patriotism.
To avoid greater tragedy in Afghanistan we may have to rely on a new generation of whistleblowers who are making huge personal sacrifices to challenge the official narrative.
Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is well aware of the impact made by the film Collateral Murder, which featured US Apache gun camera footage of the killing of 12 Iraqi civilians. Since the arrest of one of his whistleblowers, Assange has been keeping a low profile but is preparing to release the footage of a US airstrike in Afghanistan that may have killed up to 145 civilians. Like Daniel Ellsberg before him, Assange may be the whistleblower that could help change the direction of the conflict.
Such individuals represent a necessary last resort to check the powers of government. Ellsberg was once described as “the most dangerous man in America”, yet his actions in publishing the Pentagon Papers were driven by his realisation that the greater danger was the fact that there were no longer effective checks and balances to a war in Vietnam that was entirely detached from reality.
In his book, Secrets, Ellsberg describes how once, travelling back from Vietnam, defence secretary Robert McNamara assessed his visit by saying that “things aren’t any better at all. That means the underlying situation is really worse”. However, 10 minutes later in front of a press conference, he announced: “I’m glad to be able to tell you that we’re showing great progress in every dimension of our effort.”
Ellsberg’s decision to become a whistleblower was based on his answer to the question he asked himself: “How could we possibly have justified doing this?” It is likely that the departure of Britain’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, was prompted by a similar dilemma .
Yet Cowper-Coles may embrace the very British syndrome of officials maintaining a dignified silence until years later when an autobiography is released one day describing how they knew it was a complete mess all along. Foreign Office lawyer Elizabeth Wilmshurst followed a similar pattern, resigning quietly after deciding that war would be illegal, before emerging much more forthrightly to speak at the Chilcot inquiry seven years later.
Meanwhile US General Stanley McCrystal’s honest description of the serious disunity at the head of Afghanistan operations may cost him his job, but beyond being a blow to the image of Barack Obama’s conduct of the war is unlikely to change its central tenets, as the focus will remain on the general’s naivety rather than the substance of his argument.
Speaking truth to power is too important to be left to such outdated methods. We are all complicit in the actions of our democratically mandated government and as Ghandi once observed, “coercive power, legitimate or otherwise, depends on the co-operation, on the obedience and support, on the assent or at least passive tolerance of many people”.
Katharine Gun of GCHQ refused to tolerate the secret US spying on UN security council members in 2003, yet her whistleblowing cost her job and almost her freedom.
Constitutional US lawyer Glenn Greenwald outlined recently how “the Obama administration’s assault on whistleblowers is more extreme than any prior administration, including the Bush administration”. Greenwald pointed out that the US security establishment is deeply concerned with how the release of footage highlighting civilian casualties damages people’s trust in their government’s prosecution of the war.
This fear drives governments to throw the book at those individuals who raise their head above the parapet and speak out. US army specialist Bradley Manning, the rumoured source of the Apache video, has disappeared into US custody in Kuwait.
WikiLeaks’s Assange claims that he is now under tight surveillance and is afraid to travel to the US. Although these individuals can be easily smeared with accusations of treason and being unpatriotic, more often than not history vindicates their actions.

Wikileaks: A Publisher Of Last Resort
“privatized censorship”
Video Wikileaks editor interview on censorship.
Posted June 24, 2010

WikiLeaks founder drops ‘mass spying’ hint
By Andrew Fowler
Updated Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:57pm AEST
WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. (Colbert Report)

Related Story: Fears for life of Wikileaks founder Related Link: Foreign Correspondent WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange has given his strongest indication yet about the next big leak from his whistleblower organisation.
There has been rampant speculation about WikiLeaks’ next revelation following its recent release of a top secret military video showing an attack in Baghdad which killed more than a dozen people, including two employees of the Reuters news agency.
Bradley Manning, a US military intelligence officer based in Iraq, has been arrested on suspicion of leaking the video but it is also claimed that Manning bragged online that he had handed WikiLeaks 260,000 secret US State Department cables.
In an interview with the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent, Mr Assange said cryptically of WikiLeaks’ current project:
“I can give an analogy. If there had been mass spying that had affected many, many people and organisations and the details of that mass spying were released then that is something that would reveal that the interests of many people had been abused.”
He agreed it would be of the “calibre” of publishing information about the way the top secret Echelon system – the US-UK electronic spying network which eavesdrops on worldwide communications traffic – had been used.
Mr Assange also confirmed that WikiLeaks has a copy of a video showing a US military bombing of a western Afghan township which killed dozens of people, including children.
He noted, though, it was a very intricate case “substantially more complex” than the Iraq material WikiLeaks had released – referring to the gunship video.
European news media are reporting that Mr Assange has “surfaced from almost a month in hiding”, speaking at a freedom of information seminar at the European parliament in Brussels.
But during the course of the past month, Mr Assange has been talking to Foreign Correspondent for a program examining the efficacy of the WikiLeaks model.
“What we want to create is a system where there is guaranteed free press across the world, the entire world, that every individual in the world has the ability to publish materials that is meaningful,” he said.

Whistleblower speaks (NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER Adrian Lamo ,aka A Drain Lame-O, is a traitor , a spy , a Judas ,an government agent!! This man spins so much he has to screw his socks on in the morning!!! )
The program has also spoken directly to former computer hacker Adrian Lamo who blew the whistle on Bradley Manning after a boastful online discussion in which Lamo alleges the military intelligence adviser revealed himself as a significant WikiLeaks source.
“He proceeded to identify himself as an intelligence analyst and pose the question: What would you do if you have unprecedented access to classified data 14 hours a day seven days a week?” Mr Lamo said.
“He (Manning) was firing bullets into the air without thought to consequence of where they might land or who they might hit.”
WikiLeaks has built an information repository it thinks is foolproof. Instead of secret documents physically changing hands, they are anonymously sent to digital drop boxes and stored on servers around the world. Finally, they are posted on the WikiLeaks site.
During Foreign Correspondent’s assignment Mr Assange had been preparing to fly to New York to meet his hero – Daniel Ellsberg – the former US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers which amounted to a devastating expose of the Vietnam War.
Instead, concerned about travelling in the US and attracting the interest of authorities, he used Skype to speak to the conference.
He told the crowd: “Leaking is inherently an anti-authoritarian act. It’s inherently an anarchist act.”
Mr Assange has been quoted as saying he feels perfectly safe in Europe, “but I have been advised by my lawyers not to travel to the US during this period“.
Daniel Ellsberg, named by Henry Kissinger as “the most dangerous man in America”, told Foreign Correspondent that Mr Assange was “a good candidate for being the most dangerous man in the world, in the eyes of people like the one who gave me that award”.
“I’m sure that Assange is now regarded as one of the very most dangerous men and he should be quite proud of that.”


A Plot to Discredit Wikileaks ,the strange case of Adrian Lamo (A Drain Lame-O)

June 22, 2010

The Strange and Consequential Case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks
By Glenn Greenwald


This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.
“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends “The identification, exposure, termination of employment,criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Web site”.
[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justificaton for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China,Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the website”.
The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks


June 18, 2010 “Salon” —  On June 6, Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter of Wired reported that a 22-year-old U.S. Army Private in Iraq, Bradley Manning, had been detained after he “boasted” in an Internet chat — with convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo — of leaking to WikiLeaks the now famous Apache Helicopter attack video, a yet-to-be-published video of a civilian-killing air attack in Afghanistan, and “hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records.”  Lamo, who holds himself out as a “journalist” and told Manning he was one, acted instead as government informant, notifying federal authorities of what Manning allegedly told him, and then proceeded to question Manning for days as he met with federal agents, leading to Manning’s detention.
On June 10, former New York Times reporter Philip Shenon, writing in The Daily Beast, gave voice to anonymous “American officials” to announce that “Pentagon investigators” were trying “to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks [Julian Assange] for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security.”  Some news outlets used that report to declare that there was a “Pentagon manhunt” underway for Assange — as though he’s some sort of dangerous fugitive.
From the start, this whole story was quite strange for numerous reasons.  In an attempt to obtain greater clarity about what really happened here, I’ve spent the last week reviewing everything I could related to this case and speaking with several of the key participants (including Lamo, with whom I had a one-hour interview last night that can be heard on the recorder below, and Poulsen, with whom I had a lengthy email exchange, which is published in full here).  A definitive understanding of what really happened is virtually impossible to acquire, largely because almost everything that is known comes from a single, extremely untrustworthy source:  Lamo himself.  Compounding that is the fact that most of what came from Lamo has been filtered through a single journalist — Poulsen — who has a long and strange history with Lamo, who continues to possess but not disclose key evidence, and who has been only marginally transparent about what actually happened here (I say that as someone who admires Poulsen’s work as Editor of Wired’s Threat Level blog). 
Reviewing everything that is known ultimately raises more questions than it answers.  Below is my perspective on what happened here.  But there is one fact to keep in mind at the outset.   In 2008, the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a classified report (ironically leaked to and published by WikiLeaks) which — as the NYT put it — placed WikiLeaks on “the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States.”  That Report discussed ways to destroy WikiLeaks’ reputation and efficacy, and emphasized creating the impression that leaking to it is unsafe (click image to enlarge):
In other words, exactly what the U.S. Government wanted to happen in order to destroy WikiLeaks has happened here:  news reports that a key WikiLeaks source has been identified and arrested, followed by announcements from anonymous government officials that there is now a worldwide “manhunt” for its Editor-in-Chief.  Even though WikiLeaks did absolutely nothing (either in this case or ever) to compromise the identity of its source, isn’t it easy to see how these screeching media reports — WikiLeaks source arrested; worldwide manhunt for WikiLeaks; major national security threat — would cause a prospective leaker to WikiLeaks to think twice, at least:  exactly as the Pentagon Report sought to achieve?  And that Pentagon Report was from 2008, before the Apache Video was released; imagine how intensified is the Pentagon’s desire to destroy WikiLeaks now.  Combine that with what both the NYT and Newsweek recently realized is the Obama administration’s unprecedented war on whistle-blowers, and one can’t overstate the caution that’s merited here before assuming one knows what happened.
Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen have a long and strange history together.  Both were convicted of felonies relating to computer hacking:  Poulsen in 1994 (when he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, ironically because a friend turned government informant on him), and Lamo in 2004 for hacking into The New York Times.  When the U.S. Government was investigating Lamo in 2003, they subpoenaed news agencies for any documents reflecting conversations not only with Lamo, but also with Poulsen.  That’s because Lamo typically sought media publicity after his hacking adventures, and almost always used Poulsen to provide that publicity.
Despite being convicted of serious hacking felonies, Poulsen was allowed by the U.S. Government to become a journalist covering the hacking world for Security Focus News.  Back in 2002, Information Week described the strange Lamo-Poulsen relationship this way:  “To publicize his work, [Lamo] often tapped ex-hacker-turned-journalist Kevin Poulsen as his go-between:  Poulsen contacts the hacked company, alerts it to the break-in, offers Lamo’s cooperation, then reports the hack on the SecurityFocus Online Web site, where he’s a news editor.”  When Lamo hacked into the NYT, it was Poulsen who notified the newspaper’s executives on Lamo’s behalf, and then wrote about it afterward.  Poulsen told me that the above picture was taken at a lunch the two of them had together with convicted hacker Kevin Mitnick back in 2001.  When I asked Poulsen if he considers Lamo his friend, he would respond only by saying:  “He’s a subject and a source.”
Actually, over the years, Poulsen has served more or less as Lamo’s personal media voice.  Back in 2000, Poulsen would quote Lamo as an expert source on hacking.  That same year, Poulsen — armed with exclusive, inside information from Lamo — began writing about Lamo’s various hacking adventures.  After Lamo’s conviction, Poulsen wrote about his post-detention battles with law enforcement and a leaked documentary featuring Lamo.  As detailed below, Lamo is notorious in the world of hacking for being a low-level, inconsequential hacker with an insatiable need for self-promotion and media attention, and for the past decade, it has been Poulsen who satisfies that need.
On May 20 — a month ago — Poulsen, out of nowhere, despite Lamo’s not having been in the news for years, wrote a long, detailed Wired article describing serious mental health problems Lamo was experiencing.  The story Poulsen wrote goes as follows:  after Lamo’s backpack containing pharmaceutical products was stolen sometime in April (Lamo claims they were prescribed anti-depressants), Lamo called the police, who concluded that he was experiencing such acute psychiatric distress that they had him involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for three days.  That 72-hour “involuntary psychiatric hold” was then extended by a court for six more days, after which he was released to his parents’ home.  Lamo claimed he was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, a somewhat fashionable autism diagnosis which many stars in the computer world have also claimed.  In that article, Poulsen also summarized Lamo’s extensive hacking history.  Lamo told me that, while he was in the mental hospital, he called Poulsen to tell him what happened, and then told Poulsen he could write about it for a Wired article.  So starved was Lamo for some media attention that he was willing to encourage Poulsen to write about his claimed psychiatric problems if it meant an article in Wired that mentioned his name.
It was just over two weeks after writing about Lamo’s Asperger’s, depression and hacking history that Poulsen, along with Kim Zetter, reported that PFC Manning had been detained, after, they said, he had “contacted former hacker Adrian Lamo late last month over instant messenger and e-mail.”  Lamo told me that Manning first emailed him on May 20 and, according to highly edited chat logs released by Wired, had his first online chat with Manning on May 21; in other words, Manning first contacted Lamo the very day that Poulsen’s Wired article on Lamo’s involuntary commitment appeared (the Wired article is time-stamped 5:46 p.m. on May 20).
Lamo, however, told me that Manning found him not from the Wired article — which Manning never mentioned reading — but from searching the word “WikiLeaks” on Twitter, which led him to a tweet Lamo had written that included the word “WikiLeaks.”  Even if Manning had really found Lamo through a Twitter search for “WikiLeaks,” Lamo could not explain why Manning focused on him, rather than the thousands of other people who have also mentioned the word “WikiLeaks” on Twitter, including countless people who have done so by expressing support for WikiLeaks.
Although none of the Wired articles ever mention this, the first Lamo-Manning communications were not actually via chat.  Instead, Lamo told me that Manning first sent him a series of encrypted emails which Lamo was unable to decrypt because Manning “encrypted it to an outdated PGP key of mine” [PGP is an encryption program].  After receiving this first set of emails, Lamo says he replied — despite not knowing who these emails were from or what they were about — by inviting the emailer to chat with him on AOL IM, and provided his screen name to do so.  Lamo says that Manning thereafter sent him additional emails encrypted to his current PGP key, but that Lamo never bothered to decrypt them.  Instead, Lamo claims he turned over all those Manning emails to the FBI without ever reading a single one of them.  Thus, the actual initial communications between Manning and Lamo — what preceded and led to their chat — are completely unknown.  Lamo refuses to release the emails or chats other than the small chat snippets published by Wired.
Using the chat logs between Lamo and Manning — which Lamo provided to Poulsen — the Wired writers speculated that the Army Private trusted Lamo because he “sensed a kindred spirit in the ex-hacker.”  Poulsen and Zetter write that Manning confessed to being the leaker of the Apache attack video “very quickly in the exchange,” and then proceeded to boast that, in addition, “he leaked a quarter-million classified embassy cables” to WikiLeaks.  Very shortly after the first chat, Lamo notified federal agents of what Manning told him, proceeded to speak to Manning for the next several days while consulting with federal agents, and then learned that Manning was detained in Iraq.
Many of the bizarre aspects of this case, at least as conveyed by Lamo and Wired, are self-evident.  Why would a 22-year-old Private in Iraq have unfettered access to 250,000 pages of diplomatic cables so sensitive that they “could do serious damage to national security?”  Why would he contact a total stranger, whom he randomly found from a Twitter search, in order to “quickly” confess to acts that he knew could send him to prison for a very long time, perhaps his whole life?  And why would he choose to confess over the Internet, in an unsecured, international AOL IM chat, given the obvious ease with which that could be preserved, intercepted or otherwise surveilled?  These are the actions of someone either unbelievably reckless or actually eager to be caught.
All that said, this series of events isn’t completely implausible.  It’s possible that a 22-year-old who engaged in these kinds of significant leaks, sitting in isolation in Iraq, would have a desire to unburden himself by confessing to a stranger; the psychological compulsion to confess is not uncommon (see Crime and Punishment), nor is the desire to boast of such acts.  It’s possible that he would have expected someone with Lamo’s hacking and “journalist” background to be sympathetic to what he did and/or to feel compelled as a journalist not to run to the Government and disclose what he learns from a source.  Still, the apparent ease with which Manning quickly spilled his guts in such painstaking detail over an Internet chat concerning such serious crimes — and then proceeded to respond to Lamo’s very specific and probing interrogations over days without ever once worrying that he could not trust Lamo — is strange in the extreme.
If one assumes that this happened as the Wired version claims, what Lamo did here is despicable.  He holds himself out as an “award-winning journalist” and told Manning he was one (“I did tell him that I worked as a journalist,” Lamo said).  Indeed, Lamo told me (though it doesn’t appear in the chat logs published by Wired) that he told Manning early on that he was a journalist and thus could offer him confidentiality for everything they discussed under California’s shield law.  Lamo also said he told Manning that he was an ordained minister and could treat Manning’s talk as a confession, which would then compel Lamo under the law to keep their discussions confidential (early on in their chats, Manning said:  “I can’t believe what I’m confessing to you”).  In sum, Lamo explicitly led Manning to believe he could trust him and that their discussions would be confidential — perhaps legally required to be kept confidential — only to then report everything Manning said to the Government.
Worse, Lamo breached his own confidentiality commitments and turned informant without having the slightest indication that Manning had done anything to harm national security.  Indeed, Lamo acknowledged to me that he was incapable of identifying a single fact contained in any documents leaked by Manning that would harm national security.  And Manning’s capacity to leak in the future was likely non-existent given that he told Lamo right away that he was “pending discharge” for “adjustment disorder,” and no longer had access to any documents (Lamo: “Why does your job afford you access?” – Manning: “because i have a workstation . . . *had*”).
 If one believes what the chat logs claim, Manning certainly thought he was a whistle-blower acting with the noblest of motives, and probably was exactly that.  And if he really is the leaker of the Apache helicopter attack video — a video which sparked very rare and much-needed realization about the visceral truth of what our wars entail — then he’s a national hero similar to Daniel Ellsberg.  Indeed, Ellsberg himself said the very same thing about Manning just yesterday on Democracy Now:
The fact is that what Lamo reports Manning is saying has a very familiar and persuasive ring to me.  He reports Manning as having said that what he had read and what he was passing on were horrible — evidence of horrible machinations by the US backdoor dealings throughout the Middle East and, in many cases, as he put it, almost crimes.  And let me guess that — he’s not a lawyer, but I’ll guess that what looked to him like crimes are crimes, that he was putting out. We know that he put out, or at least it’s very plausible that he put out, the videos that he claimed to Lamo.  And that’s enough to go on to get them interested in pursuing both him and the other.
And so, what it comes down, to me, is — and I say throwing caution to the winds here — is that what I’ve heard so far of Assange and Manning — and I haven’t met either of them — is that they are two new heroes of mine.
To see why that’s so, just review some of what Manning said about why he chose to leak, as reflected in the edited chat logs published by Wired:
Lamo: what’s your endgame plan, then?. . .
Manning: well, it was forwarded to [WikiLeaks] – and god knows what happens now – hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms – if not, than [sic] we’re doomed – as a species – i will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens – the reaction to the video gave me immense hope; CNN’s iReport was overwhelmed; Twitter exploded – people who saw, knew there was something wrong . . . – i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.
Manning described the incident which first made him seriously question the U.S. war in Iraq:  when he was instructed to work on the case of Iraqi “insurgents” who had been detained for distributing “insurgent” literature which, when he had it translated, turned out to be nothing more than “a scholarly critique against PM Maliki”:
i had an interpreter read it for me… and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled “Where did the money go?” and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet… i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on… he didn’t want to hear any of it… he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees…
i had always questioned the things worked, and investigated to find the truth… but that was a point where i was a *part* of something… i was actively involved in something that i was completely against…
And he explained why the thought of selling this classified information he was leaking to a foreign power never entered his mind:
Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious- i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?
Lamo: why didn’t you?
Manning: because it’s public data
Lamo: i mean, the cables
Manning: it belongs in the public domain -information should be free – it belongs in the public domain – because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge – if its out in the open… it should be a public good.
That’s a whistleblower in the purest form:  discovering government secrets of criminal and corrupt acts and then publicizing them to the world not for profit, not to give other nations an edge, but to trigger “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”  That’s the person that Adrian Lamo informed on and risked sending to prison for an extremely long time. 
Making Lamo’s conduct even worse is that it appears he reported Manning for no reason other than a desire for some trivial media attention.  Jacob Appelbaum, a well-known hacker of the Tor Project who has known Lamo for years, said that Lamo’s “only concern” has always been “getting publicity for Adrian.”  Indeed, Lamo’s modus operandi as a hacker was primitive hacking aimed at high-profile companies that he’d then use Poulsen to publicize.  As Appelbaum put it: “if this situation really fell into Adrian’s lap, his first and only thought would have been:  how can I turn this to my advantage?  He basically destroyed a 22-year-old’s life in order to get his name mentioned on the blog.”  [There are efforts underway to help secure very competent legal counsel for Manning, including a legal defense fund for him; assuming the facts are what the current narrative suggests, I intend to post more about that shortly].
None of Lamo’s claims that he turned informant out of some grave concern for “national security” and “the lives of his fellow citizens” make any sense.  Indeed, Lamo several months ago contributed $30 to WikiLeaks, which he’s use to tout his support for whistle-blowing, and told me has has long considered himself on “the far left.”  Yet in the public statements he’s made about what he did to Manning, he’s incoherently invoked a slew of trite, right-wing justifications, denouncing Manning as a “traitor” and a “spy,” while darkly insinuating that Manning provided classified information to a so-called “foreign national,” meaning WikiLeaks’ Assange.  Lamo told me that any embarrassment to the U.S. Government could cause a loss of American lives, and that he believes anyone who breaks the law with leaks should be prosecuted.  Yet he also claims to support WikiLeaks, which is run by that very same “foreign national” and which exists to enable illegal leaks.
Then there’s the fact that, just in the last two weeks, Lamo’s statements have been filled with countless contradictions of the type that suggests deliberate lying.  Lamo told me, for instance, that Manning first contacted him with a series of emails, but told Yahoo! News that “Manning contacted him via AOL Instant Messenger ‘out of the blue’ on May 21.”  Lamo told Yahoo! “that he spelled out very clearly in his chats with Manning that he wasn’t … acting as a journalist,” that it “was clear to Manning that he had taken his journalist hat off for the purposes of their conversation,” and that “Manning refused” a confidentiality offer, but last night he said to me that he told Manning their conversations would have journalist-source confidentiality and that Manning never refused or rejected that.  Just listen to the interview Lamo gave to me and make your own judgment about his veracity.
And what about Wired’s role in all of this?  Both WikiLeaks as well as various Internet commentators have suggested that Poulsen violated journalistic ethical rules by being complicit with Lamo in informing on Manning.  I don’t see any evidence for that.  This is what Poulsen told me when I asked him about whether he participated in Lamo’s informing on Manning:
Adrian reached out to me in late May to tell me a story about how he’d been contacted by an Army intelligence analyst who’d admitted to leaking 260,000 State Department diplomatic cables to a “foreign national.” Adrian told me he had already reported the matter to the government, and was meeting the Army and FBI in person to pass on chat logs.  He declined to provide independently verifiable details, or identify the intelligence analyst by name, because he said he considered the matter sensitive.
Several days passed before he was willing to give me the chat logs under embargo. I got them on May 27.  That’s when I learned Manning’s name and the full details of his claims to Adrian. . . . If you’re asking if I informed on Manning or anyone else, the answer is no, and the question is insulting.
At the time when Lamo was conspiring with federal agents to induce Manning into making incriminating statements, Poulsen, by his own account, was aware that this was taking place, but there’s no indication he participated in any way with Lamo.  What is true, though, is that Lamo gave Wired the full, unedited version of his chat logs with Manning, but Wired published only extremely edited samplings of it.  This is what Poulsen told me when I asked if Lamo gave him all of the chat logs:
He did, but I don’t think we’ll be publishing more any time soon.  The remainder is either Manning discussing personal matters that aren’t clearly related to his arrest, or apparently sensitive government information that I’m not throwing up without vetting first.
This part of Wired’s conduct deserves a lot more attention.  First, in his interview with me, Lamo claimed that all sorts of things took place in the discussion between him and Manning that are (a) extremely relevant to what happened, (b) have nothing to do with Manning’s personal issues or sensitive national security secrets, and yet (c) are nowhere to be found in the chat logs published by Wired.  That means either that Lamo is lying about what was said or Wired is concealing highly relevant aspects of their discussions.  Included among that is Manning’s explanation about how he found Lamo and why he contacted him, Manning’s alleged claim that his “intention was to cripple the United States’ foreign relations for the foreseeable future,” and discussions they had about the capacity in which they were speaking. 
Second, one can’t help but note the irony that two hackers-turned-journalists — Poulsen and Lamo — are now the self-anointed guardians of America’s national security, the former concealing secrets he learned as a journalist on vague national security grounds and the latter turning informant by invoking the most extreme, right-wing platitudes about “traitors” and “spies” and decrees that his actions were necessary to “save American lives.”
Third, Wired should either publish all of the chat logs, or be far more diligent about withholding only those parts which truly pertain only to Manning’s private and personal matters and/or which would reveal national security secrets.  Or they should have a respected third party review the parts they have concealed to determine if there is any justification for that.  At least if one believes Lamo’s claims, there are clearly relevant parts of those chats which Wired continues to conceal.
Given Poulsen’s mutually beneficial and multi-layered relationship with Lamo, they have far more than a standard journalist-source relationship.  None of Poulsen’s articles about the highly controversial Lamo is ever even remotely critical of him, in any sense of the word.  From the start, there were countless bizarre aspects to Lamo’s story which Poulsen never examined or explored, at least not when writing about any of this.  I see no reason to doubt Poulsen’s integrity or good faith.  Still, in light of the magnitude of this story on several levels and his long relationship with Lamo, Kevin Poulsen should not be single-handedly deciding what the public is and isn’t permitted to know about the Lamo-Manning interaction.
The reason this story matters so much — aside from the fact that it may be the case that a truly heroic, 22-year-old whistle-blower is facing an extremely lengthy prison term — is the unique and incomparably valuable function WikiLeaks is fulfilling.  Even before the Apache helicopter leak, I wrote at length about why they are so vital, and won’t repeat all of that here.  Suffice to say, there are very few entities, if there are any, which pose as much of a threat to the ability of governmental and corporate elites to shroud their corrupt conduct behind an extreme wall of secrecy.
What makes WikiLeaks particularly threatening to the most powerful factions is that they cannot control it.  Even when whistle-blowers in the past have leaked serious corruption and criminal conduct to perfectly good journalists at the nation’s largest corporate media outlets, government officials could control how the information was disclosed.  When the NYT learned in 2004 that the Bush administration was illegally eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, George Bush summoned the paper’s Publisher and Executive Editor to the Oval Office, demanded that the story not be published, and the paper complied by sitting on it for a full year until after Bush was safely re-elected.  When The Washington Post’s Dana Priest learned that the CIA was maintaining a network of secret prisons — black sites — she honored the request of “senior U.S. officials” not to identify the countries where those prisons were located so as to not disrupt the U.S.’s ability to continue to use those countries for such projects.
Both WikiLeaks and Manning have stated that The Washington Post’s David Finkel, when writing his book on Iraq two years ago, had possession of the Apache helicopter video but never released it to the public (Manning:  “Washington Post sat on the video … David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here”).  As Columbia Journalism Review reported, both the Post and Finkel were quite coy and evasive in addressing that claim, pointedly insisting that “the Post” had never possessed that video while refusing to say whether Finkel did.  The same thing happened when, on the same day, I called Finkel to ask him about WikiLeaks’ claim that they possessed but never released that video.  He very curtly told me, using careful legalistic language, that “the Post never had the video,” but before I could ask whether Finkel himself did, he abruptly told me he couldn’t talk anymore and had nothing else to say, and then hung up on me.  My inquiries to the Post were met with a pro forma response that “The Washington Post did not have the video, nor did we sit on anything,” but these Journalistic Crusaders for Transparency refused to answer my question as to whether Finkel himself did.
By stark contrast, WikiLeaks isn’t interested in helping governments, militaries and corporations keep secrets.  They’re interested in the opposite:  forcing transparency on institutions which conduct the vast, vast bulk of their substantive conduct in the dark.  They’re not susceptible to pressure from political and corporate officials; rather, they want to hold them accountable.  That’s what makes WikiLeaks so uniquely threatening to elite institutions, and anyone who doubts that should simply read the 2008 Pentagon Report discussing ways to destroy it, or review the Obama administration’s unprecedented and rapidly escalating war on whistle-blowers generally.
Any rational person would have to acknowledge that government secrecy in rare cases is justifiable and that it’s possible for leaks of legitimate secrets to result in serious harm.  I’m not aware of a single instance where any leak from WikiLeaks has done so, but it’s certainly possible that, at some point, it might.  But right now, the scales are tipped so far in the other direction — toward excessive, all-consuming secrecy — that the far greater danger comes from allowing that to fester and grow even more.  It’s not even a close call.  Any efforts to subvert that secrecy cult are commendable in the extreme, and nobody is doing that as effectively as WikiLeaks (and their value is not confined to leaking, as they just inspired a serious effort to turn Iceland into a worldwide haven for investigative journalism and anonymous whistle-blowers).
This Manning detention — whether it was by design or just exploited opportunistically — is being used to depict WikiLeaks as a serious national security threat and associations with it as dangerous and subversive.  Just in the last week alone, several people have expressed to me fears that supporting or otherwise enabling WikiLeaks could subject them to liability or worse.  There’s no reason to believe that’s true, but given the powers the U.S. Government claims — lawless detentions, renditions, assassinations even of American citizens — that’s the climate of intimidation that has been created.  This latest incident is clearly being used to impede WikiLeaks’ vital function of checking powerful factions and imposing transparency, and for that reason alone, this is an extremely serious case that merits substantial scrutiny, along with genuine skepticism to understand what happened.
My one-hour discussion with Lamo last night can be heard by clicking PLAY on the recorders below.  It is in two segments (the first roughly 40 minutes, the second roughly 20) because Lamo requested at one point that we go off the record, which we did for 1 minute or so to discuss the parts of Manning’s chat that Lamo claims are too personal to publish (Lamo spoke only in generalities about that and I learned nothing specific).  The only other part that is edited out is the first two minutes or so of the discussion, before the interview begins, where Lamo for some reason insists that I respond to a Tweet of his before we begin, which I then did.

Iceland ,land of the (debt)free ,home of the brave (wikileaks)

June 17, 2010

A Safe Haven For Investigative Journalists Everywhere
WikiLeaks Inspired “New Media Haven” Proposal Passes In Icelandic Parliament

Reykjavik, Iceland; 4:00 UTC, June 16th 2010.
The WikiLeaks advised proposal to build an international “new media haven” in Iceland, with the world’s strongest press and whistleblower protection laws, and a “Nobel” prize for for Freedom of Expression, has unanimously passed the Icelandic Parliament.

Vote results are available at  

No matter what reasonable and respected voices had to say on the matter. The government opposed the idea of a direct democratic decision.
Until the last minute the government had tried to discourage the voters from voting. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance both said they would not participate in the referendum. They saw it as a “waste of money” and a “farce”!!! … (and paying for other peoples debts is non-farcical and  good value for money?!? maybe its the Icelandic government that is a farce and a waste of money! IMHO its certainly is in the UK and USA)

The Icelandic referendum, the voice of the people against the blackmailing power of the international financial elites might now have become precedent for other countries in similar situations.
What the bankers seem to fear above all things is a direct democracy in financial matters.

And no doubt that´s quite a reasonable fear, for such a democracy would lead to more and more people getting informed about financial matters and the money-creation process itself.
The knowledge about this process coupled with the instruments of a direct democracy would lead eventually and without any doubt to a monetary reform and a loss of power for the international bankers.

One of the inspirations for the proposal was the dramatic August 2009 gagging of of Iceland’s national broadcaster, RUV by Iceland’s then largest bank, Kaupthing:,_26_Sep_2008 
Two changes were made to the proposal from its original form as per the opinion of the parliament’s general affairs committee [ ]. The first of these altered slightly the wording of the first paragraph so as to widen the arena for research. The second of these added two new items to the list of tasks for the government:
   – That the government should perform a detailed analysis, especially with respect to operational security, for the prospect of operating data centers in Iceland.
   – That the government should organize an international conference in Iceland regarding the changes to the legal environment being caused by expansion of cloud computing, data havens, and the judicial state of the Internet.
Video footage from the proposal’s vote will be available at: 
For details of the proposal and press contacts, please see 


The people of Iceland have not only said NO to thier represntative dictatorship selling them into debt slavery!! They have started ARRESTING THE GUILTY BANKERS!!!! BUT THAT IS DIRECT DEMOCRACY FOR YOU (aka ANARCHY ,you know that form of society that is always badmouthed by the MSM!!! They say “anarchy” means murder and theft and survival of the fittest!! NO THIS IS MORE CORRECT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ,WHICH IS SUFFERING FROM AN IMPOSITION OF LAW , THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF ANARCHY!!! ALL THE THIEVES AND MURDERS HAVE DOG TAGS AND ARE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION!!


An Interpol notice on Tuesday said Einarsson was wanted on charges of counterfeiting, forgery and fraud.

Einarsson, who lives in London, was said to be reluctant to come to Reykjavik for fear of being arrested and Icelandic authorities have refused to offer any assurances.
Yet another day of Iceland banking arrests
Posted on11 May 2010.
Ingolfur Helgason, the former Director of Kaupthing Iceland, and Steingrimur Karason, former CEO of the bank’s risk management department, were both arrested today upon arriving back in Iceland. They went straight to interrogation with the Special Prosecutor and are being held in police cells.

Bankers jailed, sued as Iceland seeks culprits for crisis
Since Iceland’s three largest banks — Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir — collapsed in late 2008, their former executives and owners have largely been living untroubled lives abroad.
But the publication last month of a parliamentary inquiry into the island nation’s profound financial and economic crisis signaled a turning of the tide, laying much of the blame for the downfall on the former bank heads who had taken “inappropriate loans from the banks” they worked for.
On Wednesday, the administrators of Glitnir’s liquidation announced they had filed a two-billion-dollar (1.6-billion-euro) lawsuit in a New York court against former large shareholders and executives for alleged fraud.


In November 2008, Ecuador became the first country to undertake an examination of the legitimacy and structure of its foreign debt. An independent debt audit commissioned by the government of Ecuador documented hundreds of allegations of irregularity, illegality, and illegitimacy in contracts of debt to predatory international lenders. The loans, according to the report, violated Ecuador’s domestic laws, US Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, and general principles of international law. Ecuador’s use of legitimacy as a legal argument for defaulting set a major precedent; indeed, the formation of a debt auditing commission sets a precedent.


Greg Palast Tells How The IMF Set-Up Iceland & Greece on Alex Jones Tv 1/2

Greg Palast Tells How The IMF Set-Up Iceland & Greece on Alex Jones Tv 2/2

Fractional Reserve Banking System Basis of Bankster Fraud
Stock-Markets / Credit Crisis 2009
Oct 10, 2009 – 02:52 PM
By: Gary_North

The heart of the modern monetary system is fractional reserve banking. This system is based on fraud. At the very heart of the modern economy is fraud – fraud on a gigantic scale.

What is the nature of this fraud? Counterfeiting. Banks are government-licensed institutions that issue bogus IOUs. Because these IOUs function as money, they are counterfeit money. This is the heart, mind, and soul of all modern banking


Even though Argentina defaulted on its debt, it is still around. Yes it did pay the price initially by being shut out of the global capital markets for years, but it did not vanish and only its foreign debt holders lost.

After the non-violent collapse of the Argentinean government in 2001/2002, the social and economic organization of Argentina has undergone major changes, though how important these changes are remains to be seen. Worker occupations of factories and popular assemblies have both been seen functioning in Argentina, and both are the kind of action endorsed by anarchists: the first is a case of direct action and the latter a case of direct democracy. Approximately 200 “recovered” factories (fábricas recuperadas) are now self-managed and collectively owned by workers. In the large majority of them, pay is completely egalitarian; generally no professional managers are employed, or managers are collectively controlled in the other cases. These co-operatives have organised themselves into networks. Solidarity and support from external groups such as neighborhood assemblies and unemployed (piquetero) groups have often been important for the survival of these factories. Similar developments have taken place in Brazil and Uruguay.[6] In 2004, Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein (author of No Logo) released the documentary The Take, which is about these events.

Never take counsel of your fears.”
 The Jacksonians opposed government granted monopolies to banks, especially the national bank, which was a central bank known as the Second Bank of the  United States. Jackson fought to end the government monopoly to the Bank and got great opposition from Nicholas Biddle, the bank chairman. Biddle first  dismissed Jackson efforts, but as the initiative gained popular support, he got more concerned. There was an attempt to murder Jackson at that time but the  pistols failed. Jackson would later claim that he had proof the bankers were behind this attempt. Jackson was able to gain popular support because the Bank  money manipulations and inflation had created a big recession, and it had inflated land prices, benefiting big land owners and stopping economical  development. In a last attempt to stop Jackson, Biddle burst the bubble his inflationary policies had created, and brought about a deflationary correction.  This put pressure on Jackson, but after a year of recession, the economy was clean by the deflationary correction, and the Bank was out of “ammunition”.  Jackson had won the battle. The Bank continued his operations as a state bank, but had to close years after. Once retired, everytime Jackson was asked what  was his biggest achievement as president he answered: “I killed the Bank”.

ANDREW JACKSON was the ONE president that CLEARED AMERICAN DEBT ,when faced with financial ruin How did he manage it?

The Bank is trying to kill me, but I shall kill it!”


You are a nest of vipers and thieves, and by the grace of the almighty God, I will root you out!”


Corporations have neither bodies to kick nor souls to damn.


Hemans gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men who would involve their country in civil wars, and all the evils in its train that they might  reign & ride on its whirlwinds & direct the Storm– The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper  doom.



Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a form of democracy and a theory of civics in which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election.










Virtual WW3,Internet Freedom and the war in cyberspace

March 24, 2010


 A Call to arms for all Keyboard Crusaders and Armchair Activists. In the endless struggle for freedom the battle for hearts and minds is the goal and a free press is the essential tool . A tool that reports the good ,the bad and the ugly warts and all ,from many different perspectives.Today the press is NOT FREE ,ask Rupert Murdoch he paid a lot for it!

When the government is scared of the people and the power of the people to investigate the deeds and workings of government ,then we have a strong and FREE society. When the people are scared of the governments power to investigate the deeds and workings of the people ,we have a strong DICTATORSHIP!

Leftwing vs rightwing is an old divide and rule concept given to us by AUTHORITARIANS. The same authoritarians that claim to be Labour or Tory ,Democrate or Republican, but apart from the colour of the rossettes and balloons there is NO DIFFERENCE!! left wing ,right wing is a distraction from the REALPOLITIK  


IMHO If we are going to fly ,we need 2 wings. I see no conflict between the teachings of Adam Smith a Libertarian and Karl Marx another Libertarian. Both believed in governmentless societies. In Adam Smith’s ideology there never was a government. It was meant to be a meritocracy with only a trade and standards commision. The government was the Invisible hand. Karl Marx believed that the state should do nothing but wither away. “While there is state there is no freedom , when there is freedom there is no state.” Lennin

Today we have capitalists and socialists that believe in big government. These people are in fact FASCISTS and BOTH follow state capitalism ,the  only slight difference is that one prefers BIG GOVERNMENT and the other BIG CORPORATIONS. The Two cheeks of the same arse!

State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Corporatized state agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed firms, and thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism


Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini, fascist dictator of Italy (1922-1943)

The FREE UNRESTRICTED INTERNET gives us the tools we need to defend freedom and democracy and more and more people are turning to it everyday ,as they realise that it is more informing and entertaining and TRUTHFUL!!!


Internet tops TV viewing in Canada: Ipsos poll

For the first time ever, Canadians are spending more time surfing the web than they are watching television, a new poll shows.

Canadians are now spending more than 18 hours each week online, and 16.9 hours watching television, the Ipsos Reid study shows. That’s up from last year, when we were spending 14.9 hours on the Internet and 15.8 hours watching TV. Males are spending more time online than females – 20 hours for men, 16 hours for women – and those aged 18-34 are spending 20 hours each week online, while people 35 and up are spending about 18 hours online. “Today, online Canadians are finding a myriad of entertainment options available to them within the walls of their homes. While some entertainment content has simply shifted from television to online, the Internet is also providing new content to Canadians,” study author Mark Laver says in a press release.

“The Internet is poised to take the next step in our lives as it delivers more and more entertainment content to Canadians in their homes and on the go.” When it comes to watching TV, those 55 and up are sitting in front of the tube for about 20 hours each week. But the hours drop as people get younger.People between the ages of 35-54 spend about 15 hours watching their favourite shows while those 18-34 will watch TV for about 13 hours each week.The online survey of 839 people was conducted via the Ipsos Online Panel last fall. “The data indicates that not only are people of all ages spending more and more time online, but it also points to a shift in how online Canadians are consuming media and where they are spending their free time,” Laver said.



This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.
“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends

“The identification, exposure, termination of employment,criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Web site”.
[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justificaton for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China,Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the website”.
The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks

I always said Military Intelligence is a contradiction in terms…

MICROSOFT IS A NARK AND A SUPERGRASS AND SUPERSPY DO NOT USE ITS PRODUCTS!! There are much better Open Source Products availale free of charge without SPYWARE! takedown: Microsoft Global Criminal Compliance Handbook, 24 Feb 2010 is a venerable New York based anti-secrecy site that has been publishing since 1999. On Feb 24, 2010, the site was forcably taken down following its publication Microsoft’s “Global Criminal Compliance Handbook”, a confidential 22 page booklet designed for police and intelligence services. The guide provides a “menu” of information Microsoft collects on the users of its online services.

Microsoft lawyers threatened Cryptome and its “printer”, internet hosting provider giant Network Solutions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA was designed to protect the legitimate rights of publishers, not to conceal scandalous internal documents that were never intended for sale. Although the action is a clear abuse of the DMCA, Network Solutions, a company with extensive connections to U.S. intelligence contractors, gagged the site in its entirety. Such actions are a serious problem in the United States, where although in theory the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, in practice, censorship has been privatized via abuse of the judicial system and corporate patronage networks.


Internet censorship in Australia primarily refers to the proposed banning of certain Internet materials by the Australian Federal Government, through mandatory filtering of website access from all Australian Internet Service Providers. Censorship also occurs by the issuing of take-down notices to websites operating in Australia, and by requiring Google to remove some sites from their search results. In 2008, the Australian Labor Party introduced a policy of mandatory Internet filtering for all Australians. While the policy has not yet come into force, it has generated substantial opposition, with only a few groups in support. The Labor Party does not have enough votes in the Senate to enact any legislation to support the filter, so the filter has “effectively been scuttled” unless the government is able to implement the filter by other means.[1][2][3] The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) maintains a blacklist, leaked in March 2009,[4] of websites which would form the basis for the mandatory filter. It has issued a take-down notice and threatened fines of $11,000 per day to at least one website hosted in Australia which contained a link to material on this blacklist.[5]On Tuesday 15 December 2009, it was announced that new legislation, entitled “Measures to improve  safety of the internet for families”, would be introduced to support mandatory Internet filtering.[6]

This legislation is unlikely to be introduced before June 2010

Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. The legal issues are similar to offline censorship.

One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. A government can try to prevent its citizens from viewing these even if it has no control over the websites themselves. Filtering can be based on a blacklist or be dynamic. In the case of a blacklist, that list is usually not published. The list may be produced manually or automatically.

Barring total control on Internet-connected computers, such as in North Korea, total censorship of information on the Internet is very difficult (or impossible) to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) allow unconditional free speech, as the technology guarantees that material cannot be removed and the authorof any information is impossible to link to a physical identity or organization.

Technical censorship

Some commonly used methods for censoring content are:

  • IP blocking. Access to a certain IP address is denied. If the target Web site is hosted in a shared hosting server, all websites on the same server will be blocked. This affects IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find proxies that have access to the target websites, but proxies may be jammed or blocked, and some Web sites, such as Wikipedia (when editing), also block proxies. Some large websites like Google have allocated additional IP addresses to circumvent the block, but later the block was extended to cover the new IPs.
  • DNS filtering and redirection. Don’t resolve domain names, or return incorrect IP addresses. This affects all IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find a domain name server that resolves domain names correctly, but domain name servers are subject to blockage as well, especially IP blocking. Another workaround is to bypass DNS if the IP address is obtainable from other sources and is not blocked. Examples are modifying the Hosts file or typing the IP address instead of the domain name in a Web browser.
  • Uniform Resource Locator (URL) filtering. Scan the requested URL string for target keywords regardless of the domain name specified in the URL. This affects the HTTP protocol. Typical circumvention methods are to use escaped characters in the URL, or to use encrypted protocols such as VPN and TLS/SSL.[3]
  • Packet filtering. Terminate TCP packet transmissions when a certain number of controversial keywords are detected. This affects all TCP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP, but Search engine results pages are more likely to be censored. Typical circumvention methods are to use encrypted connections – such as VPN and TLS/SSL – to escape the HTML content, or by reducing the TCP/IP stack‘s MTU/MSS to reduce the amount of text contained in a given packet.
  • Connection reset. If a previous TCP connection is blocked by the filter, future connection attempts from both sides will also be blocked for up to 30 minutes. Depending on the location of the block, other users or websites may also be blocked if the communication is routed to the location of the block. A circumvention method is to ignore the reset packet sent by the firewall.[4]
  • Web feed blocking. Increasingly, incoming URLs starting with the words “rss”, “feed”, or “blog” are blocked.[5]
  • Reverse surveillance. Computers accessing certain websites including Google are automatically exposed to reverse scanning from the ISP in an apparent attempt to extract further information from the “offending” system.[citation needed]

One of the most popular filtering software programmes is SmartFilter, owned by Secure Computing in California, which has recently been bought by McAfee. SmartFilter has been used by Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, as well as in the US and the UK

BLACK= Heavy cencorship

RED = Under Survellience and tracking

YELLOW =Limited Cencorship


File:Internet blackholes.svg

The fight for free access to information is being played out to an ever greater extent on the Internet. The emerging general trend is that a growing number of countries are attemptimg to tighten their control of the Net, but at the same time, increasingly inventive netizens demonstrate mutual solidarity by mobilizing when necessary.

The Internet: a space for information-sharing and mobilizing

In authoritarian countries in which the traditional media are state-controlled, the Internet offers a unique space for discussion and information-sharing, and has become an ever more important engine for protest and mobilization. The Internet is the crucible in which repressed civil societies can revive and develop.

While there is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes “pervasive censorship”, RSF (Reporters sans frontières) maintains an internet enemy list[11] while the OpenNet Initiative categorizes some nations as practicing extreme levels of Internet censorship. Such nations often censor political content and may retaliate against citizens who violate the censorship with imprisonment or other sanctions.

Main article: Internet censorship in Burma
Burma (also known as Myanmar) is in ONI’s substantial category and is on the RSF’s internet enemy list. Internet use is so threatening in Burma that even going online is considered a dissident act, thus giving the country a very low penetration rate. The internet is regulated by the Electronic Act which bans the importing and use of a modem without official permission, and the penalty for violating this is a 15 year prison sentence, as it is considered “damaging state security, national unity, culture, the national economy and law and order.” [12]Burma has banned the websites of political opposition groups, sites relating to human rights, and organizations promoting democracy in Burma.[10] During the 2007 anti-government protests, Burma completely shut down all internet links from its country.[13]

Main article: Censorship in Cuba
Cuba is on ONI’s watchlist and on RSF’s internet enemy list. According to Reporters Without Borders[14], Cuba has the lowest ratio of computers per inhabitant in Latin America, and the lowest internet access ratio of all the Western hemisphere.[15] Citizens have to use government controlled “access points”, where their activity is monitored through IP blocking, keyword filtering and browsing history checking. The government cites its citizens’ access to internet services are limited due to high costs and the American embargo, but there are reports concerning the will of the government to control access to uncensored information both from and to the outer world.[16] The Cuban government continues to imprison independent journalists for contributing reports through the Internet to web sites outside of Cuba.[17]Salim Lamrani, a professor at Paris Descartes University, has accused Reporters Without Borders with making unsupported and contradictory statements regarding Internet connectivity in Cuba.[18] However, despite precise figures are hard to know because of the secretive nature of the regime and its telecommunication policies, testimonials from independent bloggers, activists and international watchers agree by saying the difficulties for non-government people to access the web as well as the harsh punishments against transgressors[19][20][21] are the norm. The Committee to Protect Journalists has pointed Cuba as one of the ten most censored countries around the world[22].

Egypt is not categorized by the ONI and is on the RSF’s internet enemy list. Due to fears of terrorism, the government increased web surveillance in 2007. To connect to wireless internet in a public place, such as a cybercafé, a person must give up a lot of personal information, such as a phone number or ID #, making it hard for citizens to express themselves freely.[12]

Main article: Internet censorship in Iran
Iran is in ONI’s pervasive category and on RSF’s internet enemy list. Iran Internet censorship is delegated to ISPs who attempt to filter contents critical of the government, pornographic websites, political blogs, and especially recently women’s rights websites, weblogs, and online magazines.[10][23] Bloggers in Iran have been imprisoned for their Internet activities.[24] Most recently, the Iranian government temporarily blocked access, between 12 May 2006 and January 2009, to video-upload sites such as[25]. Flickr, which was blocked for almost the same amount of time was opened in February 2009. But after 2009 election protests YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook and many more websites got blocked again.[citation needed]

 North Korea
Main article: Internet censorship in North Korea
North Korea is not categorized by ONI but is on RSF’s internet enemy list. Only a few hundred thousand citizens in North Korea, representing about 4% of the total population, have access to the Internet, which is heavily censored by the national government.[26] According to the RSF North Korea is a prime example where mediums of communication are controlled by the government. According to the RSF, Internet is the medium most used to the service of the North Korean government to primarily spread propaganda. The North Korean network is monitored heavily with only two websites being hosted under a domain name. All websites are under government control, as is all other media in North Korea.[12]

 People’s Republic of China
Main article: Internet censorship in the People’s Republic of China
The People’s Republic of China is in ONI’s pervasive category and is on RSF’s internet enemy list. China blocks or filters Internet content relating to Tibetan independence, Taiwan independence, police brutality, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, freedom of speech, pornography, some international news sources (such as the VOA), certain religious movements (such as Falun Gong), and many blogging websites. Some 52 cyber dissidents are reportedly imprisoned in China for their online postings.[27]

Syria has banned websites for political reasons and arrested people accessing them, and is in ONI’s pervasive category and is on RSF’s internet enemy list. In addition to filtering a wide range of Web content, the Syrian government monitors Internet use very closely and has detained citizens “for expressing their opinions or reporting information online.” Vague and broadly worded laws invite government abuse and have prompted Internet users to engage in self-censoring and self-monitoring to avoid the state’s ambiguous grounds for arrest.[10][28]

Main article: Internet censorship in Tunisia
Tunisia is in ONI’s pervasive category and is on RSF’s internet enemy list. Tunisia has blocked thousands of websites (such as pornography, mail, search engine cached pages, online documents conversion and translation services) and peer-to-peer and FTP transfer using a transparent proxy and port blocking. Cyber dissidents including pro-democracy lawyer Mohammed Abbou have been jailed by the Tunisian government for their online activities.[29]

Turkmenistan is not categorized by the ONI and it is on the RSF’s internet enemy list. Internet usage in Turkmenistan is under tight control by the government. Turkmen got their news through satellite television until 2008 when the government decided to get rid of satellites leaving Internet as the only medium where information could be gathered. Internet is monitored thoroughly by the government as websites ran by human rights organizations and news agencies were blocked. Attempts to get around this censorship could lead to grave consequences [12]

Uzbekistan is in ONI’s pervasive category and is on RSF’s internet enemy list. Uzbekistan prevents access to websites regarding banned Islamic movements, independent media, NGOs, and material critical of the government’s human rights violations.[10] Some Internet cafes in the capital have posted warnings that users will be fined for viewing pornographic websites or website containing banned political material.[30]

Main article: Internet censorship in Vietnam
Vietnam is in ONI’s pervasive category and is on RSF’s internet enemy list. The main networks in Vietnam prevent access to websites critical of the Vietnamese government, expatriate political parties, and international human rights organizations, among others.[10] Online police reportedly monitor Internet cafes and cyber dissidents have been imprisoned for advocating democracy.


Main article: Internet censorship in Australia
Australia is in ONI’s nominal category as of 2008. It does not allow content that would be classified “RC” (Refused Classification or banned) or “X18+” (hardcore non-violent pornography) to be hosted within Australia and considers such content “prohibited”/”potentially prohibited” outside Australia; it also requires most other age-restricted content sites to verify a user’s age before allowing access. Since January 2008 material that would be likely to be classified “R18+” or “MA15+” and which is not behind such an age verification service (and, for MA15+, which also meets other criteria such as provided for profit, or contains certain media types) also fits the category of “prohibited” or “potentially prohibited”. The regulator ACMA can order local sites which do not comply taken down, and overseas sites added to a blacklist provided to makers of PC-based filtering software. The list itself and associated documentation was specially exempted from Freedom of Information laws under the previous Howard government. Identification of these “prohibited” or “potentially prohibited” items appears to be done mainly as a response to individual complaints rather than by any attempt to pre-emptively classify sites or pages. In addition, certain addresses (mostly of child porn) also come from international and local law enforcement and related sources. The number of items on the prohibited blacklist was in the range of 1,000 to 1,300 in late 2008 and early 2009, with roughly 32% classified as “child abuse material and child sexual abuse material”[32].Both major Australian political parties have shown support for the policy of mandatory blocking at the ISP level, of material on the ACMA blacklist, as well as providing a second level of opt-out “clean feed” which would also block adult content and an unknown number of other categories.[33] As of 2008 this policy has been outlined, but not implemented, and there has been significant opposition to it.[34] In March 2009, the ACMA “blacklist” was leaked, revealing several innocent sites which were included in error.In December 2009, the federal Labor government released results of its censorship technical trial and based on its interpretation of those results released a new internet censorship policy.[35]

 A Bahraini website blockedOn 5 January 2009 the Ministry of Culture and Information issued an order (Resolution No 1 of 2009)[36] pursuant to the Telecommunications Law and Press and Publications Law of Bahrain that regulates the blocking and unblocking of websites. This resolution requires all ISPs – among other things – to procure and install a website blocking software solution chosen by the Ministry. The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (“TRA”) assisted the Ministry of Culture and Information in the execution of the said Resolution by coordinating the procurement of the unified website blocking software solution. This software solution is operated solely by the Ministry of Information and Culture and neither the TRA nor ISPs have any control over sites that are blocked or unblocked.

 South Korea
South Korea is in ONI’s substantial category but is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. South Korea’s internet censorship policy is highly political and particularly strong toward suppressing anonymity in the Korean internet. In 2007, numerous bloggers were censored and their posts deleted by police for expressing criticism of, or even support for, presidential candidates. This even lead to some bloggers being arrested by the police.[37] Subsequently in 2008, just before a new presidential election, new legislation that required all major internet portal sites to require identity verification of their users was put into effect. This applies to all users who add any publicly viewable content. For example, to post a comment on a news article, a user registration and citizen identity number verification is required. For foreigners who do not have such numbers, a copy of passport must be faxed and verified. Although this law was initially met with public outcry, as of 2008, most of the major portals, including Daum, Naver, Nate, and Yahoo Korea, enforce such verification before the user can post any material that is publicly viewable.[citation needed] Also, South Korea has banned at least 31 sites considered sympathetic to North Korea through the use of IP blocking.[10] Moreover, They started to block illegal websites such as unrated games, pornography, gambling, etc, since 2008. Attempts to access these sites are automatically redirected to the warning page showing “This site is legally blocked by the government regulations.”[38] Furthermore, search engines are required to verify age for some keywords deemed inappropriate for minors. For such keywords, age verification using national identity number is required. For foreigners, a copy of passport must be faxed to verify the age. As of 2008, practically all large search engine companies in South Korea, including foreign-owned companies (e.g. Yahoo! Korea), have complied with this legislation.[citation needed] Only Google evades government’s legislation. In April 2009 when Communication Commission ordered to put on user verification system at YouTube, Google Korea blocked video uploading from user whose country setting is Korean[39].

 Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is in ONI’s substantial category and is on RSF’s internet enemy list. Saudi Arabia directs all international Internet traffic through a proxy farm located in King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology. Content filtering is implemented there using software by Secure Computing.[40] Additionally, a number of sites are blocked according to two lists maintained by the Internet Services Unit (ISU):[41] one containing “immoral” (mostly pornographic) sites, the other based on directions from a security committee run by the Ministry of Interior (including sites critical of the Saudi government). Citizens are encouraged to actively report “immoral” sites for blocking, using a provided Web form. The legal basis for content-filtering is the resolution by Council of Ministers dated 12 February 2001.[42] According to a study carried out in 2004 by the OpenNet Initiative:

The most aggressive censorship focused on pornography, drug use, gambling, religious conversion of Muslims, and filtering circumvention tools.[40]See the report by Harvard University’s Law School on Documentation of Internet Filtering in Saudi Arabia.

 United Arab Emirates
The United Arab Emirates is in ONI’s substantial category and is not on Reporters Without Borders (RSF)’s internet enemy list. The United Arab Emirates forcibly censors the Internet using Secure Computing’s solution. The nation’s ISPs Etisalat and du (telco) ban pornography, politically sensitive material, and anything against the perceived moral values of the UAE. All or most VoIP services are blocked.

Yemen is in ONI’s substantial category and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Yemen’s two ISPs block access to contents falling under the categories of gambling, adult contents, and sex education as well as material seeking to convert Muslims to other religions
Nominal and others

Belgian internet providers Belgacom, Telenet, Base, Scarlet, EDPnet, Dommel, Proximus, Mobistar, Mobile Vikings, Tele2, and Versatel have started filtering several websites on DNS level since April 2009[43]. People who browse the internet using one of these providers and hit a blocked website are redirected to a page that claims that the content of the website is illegal under Belgian law and therefore blocked[44].

Brazilian legislation restricts the freedom of expression (Paim Law), directed especially to publications considered racist (such as neo-nazi sites). The Brazilian Constitution also prohibits anonymity of journalists.

Canada is in ONI’s nominal category and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. In a few cases, information which the government is actively attempting to keep out of Canadian broadcast and print media (such as names of young offenders or information on criminal trials subject to publication bans) is available to Canadian users via Internet from sites hosted outside Canada. Project Cleanfeed Canada ( decides what sites are child pornographic in nature and transmits those lists to the voluntarily participating ISPs who can then block the pages for their users. However, some argue that they are accountable to no one and could be adding non pornographic sites to their list without public knowledge.[citation needed]

Chile is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list and it’s considered one of the most liberal countries in terms of internet freedom in Latin America. Many educational institutions (universities and schools) block the access to websites like YouTube, Fotolog, Flickr, Blogger, Rapidshare, Twitter and Facebook, depending of the institution; in some cases also popular portals like,, are also blocked; pornography, specially any kind of child pornographic website is blocked.[45] The Chilean Government also block the access in their computers to blogs or electronic versions of the local newspapers with opinions against the Government or the ruling coalition, for example, during the first days of Transantiago or the 2006 Student Protests or the Chile-Microsoft relationship.

Colombia blocks several websites as part of its Internet Sano program.In December 2009, an internaute was sent to prison for promoting a group against president Alvaro Uribe’s sons [2]. 

In Croatia, Damir Fintić, a “promoter of a blog site” is in jail because an anonymous blogger has written something against one politician. That politician sued Fintić and won. Fintić does not have the money to pay the lost cause and is in jail.

 Czech Republic
Since 2008, mobile operators T-mobile[46] and Vodafone [47][48] pass mobile and fixed Internet traffic through Cleanfeed which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to identify pages believed to contain indecent photographs of children, and racist materials. On August 13, 2009, Telefónica O2 Czech Republic, Czech DSL incumbent and mobile operator, started to block access to sites listed by Internet Watch Foundation. Operator said he wanted to replace the list with data provided by Czech Police.[49] Blocking system roll-out attracted public attention due to serious network service difficulties and many innocent sites mistakenly blocked[50]. The concrete blocking implementation is unknown but it’s believed recursive DNS servers provided by the operator to his customers have been modified to return fake answers diverting consequent TCP connections to HTTP firewall.[51]

Denmark is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Denmark’s biggest Internet service provider TDC A/S launched a DNS-based child pornography filter on 18 October 2005 in cooperation with the state police department and Save the Children, a charity organisation. Since then, all major providers have joined and as of May 2006, 98% of the Danish Internet users are restricted by the filter.[52] The filter caused some controversy in March 2006, when a legal sex site named was caught in the filter, sparking discussion about the reliability, accuracy and credibility of the filter.[53] Also, as of 18 October 2005, TDC A/S has blocked access to, a popular MP3 download site, through DNS filtering.[54] 4 February 2008 a Danish court has ordered the Danish ISP Tele2 to shutdown access to the filesharing site for all its Danish users.[55] On 23 December 2008, the list of 3,863 sites filtered in Denmark was released by Wikileaks.[56]

Early 2010 Estonia started DNS filtering of “remote gambling sites” conflicting the renewed Gambling Act (2008). Estonia Implements Gambling Act. So far (2010-03-01) only one casino has obtained the proper license. The Gambling Act says – servers for the “legal” remote gambling must be physically located in Estonia. The latest local news is that Tax and Customs Board has compiled a blocking list containing 175 sites which ISPs are to enforce. Previously Internet was completely free of censorship in Estonia.

Fiji is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. In May 2007 it was reported that the military in Fiji had blocked access to blogs critical of the regime.[57]

Finland is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Following a “voluntary law” [58] enacted by Finnish parliament in 1 January 2007, most of the Finland’s major Internet service providers decided on 22 November 2006 to begin filtering child pornography and ISPs first started filtering on January 2008. The Ministry of Communications has commented that filtering is voluntary for ISPs as long as they do not refuse. The blacklist is provided by Finnish police and should contain only foreign sites. Technically filtering was planned to be URI based like the United Kingdom’s Cleanfeed, but so far implementations have been DNS based.A majority of these censored Internet sites, however, do not actually seem to be censored by the Finnish ISPs due to actual child pornography, but due to “normal” adult pornography instead. Most of the known sites are also located in EU or United States where child pornography is strictly illegal anyway. Two-thirds of the Finnish internet censorship list of the filtered domains were collected on,[59] the homepage of Matti Nikki, a Finnish activist criticizing Internet censorship in the European Union and especially in Finland. On 12 February 2008, Nikki’s page was also added to National Bureau of Investigation’s blacklist (Wikinews article). As the list was compiled using links from pornography sites, this list does not tell anything about the last third of the blocked sites. At September 2008 problems with accuracy continued, when websites of main international standards organization for World Wide Web W3C was briefly blacklisted as childporn by mistake.[60] More recently, a government-sponsored report has considered establishing similar filtering in order to curb online gambling.[61]After investigation of complaints about how the law on filtering child pornography has been implemented and the actions of the police the vice Parliamentary Ombudsman concludes (29.5.2009) that the police has followed the law and that most sites on the list did have material that could be classified as child pornography at the time they were investigated by the police. He also found that the law is somewhat unclear and that its effect on free speech is problematic and recommends these matters be considered when the law is overseen.[62]

France is in ONI’s watchlist and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. French courts demanded Yahoo! block Nazi material in the case LICRA vs. Yahoo. The case is currently[citation needed] on appeal for an en banc rehearing. The Hadopi law, enacted in 2009, allows disconnecting from the Internet users that have been caught illegally downloading copyrighted content, or failing to secure their system again such illegal downloads; as of August 2009, this law is to be supplemented by a Hadopi2 law. The LOPPSI 2 law, brought before Parliament in 2009, will authorize a blacklist of sites providing child pornography,established by the Ministry of the Interior, which Internet service providers will have to block. The Loppsi “Bill on direction and planning for the performance of domestic security” is a far-reaching security bill that seeks to modernise Internet laws, criminalising online identity theft, allowing police to tap Internet connections as well as phone lines during investigations and targeting child pornography by ordering ISPs to filter Internet connections. In 2010, French parliament opposed all the amendments seeking to minimise the use of filtering Internet sites. This move has stirred controversy throughout French society, as the Internet filtering intended to catch child pornographers could also be extended to censor other material.[63] Critics also warn that filtering URLs will have no effect, as distributors of child pornographer and other materials are already using encrypted peer-to-peer systems to deliver their wares.[64]

Main article: Internet censorship in Germany

Ghana is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. In 2002 the government of Ghana censored internet media coverage of tribal violence in Northern Ghana.[65]

Main article: Internet censorship in Ireland

Main article: Internet censorship in India
India is in ONI’s nominal category and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. As of July 2006[update] the Indian government has directed ISPs to block seventeen websites, including some hosted on the Geocities, Blogspot and Typepad domains. Initial implementation difficulties led to these domains being blocked entirely.[66][67] Access to sites on these domains other than the specifically banned ones was restored by most ISPs after about a week.[68] The first documented incident of Internet censorship in India was the Yahoo! Groups ban of 23 September 2003. Kynhun, a Yahoo! group linked to the outlawed “Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council”, a minor separatist group, was ordered banned by the Department of Telecommunications. Difficulties in implementing the ban by the ISP’s ultimately led to all Yahoo! groups being banned for a period of about two weeks. Recently, Indian law enforcement has entered an agreement with the popular social networking site Orkut to track down what it deems defamatory content which, in their example, includes content critical of Bal Thackeray.[69]India is also looking to block Google Maps due to the Mumbai attacks.

Israel is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. The Orthodox Jewish parties in Israel proposed an internet censorship legislation would only allow access to adult-content Internet sites for users who identify themselves as adults and request not to be subject to filtering. In 27/02/2008 the law passed in its first of three votes required[70], however it has been rejected by the government’s legislation committee on 12/07/2009.[71] Israeli laws regarding the holocaust denial [72] apply to the Internet as well as to traditional media. Sites which deny the holocaust cannot be hosted in Israel and Israelis who attempt to use the Internet for the purposes of holocaust denial face arrest and imprisonment.

Main article: Censorship in Italy
Italy is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Italy bans the use of foreign bookmakers over the Internet by mandating certain edits to DNS host files of Italian ISPs.[73][74].Italy is also blocking access to websites containing child pornography.[75] In 2008, Italy blocked also The Pirate Bay website[76][77] for some time, basing this censorship on a law on electronic commerce.

Jordan is not on RSF’s internet enemy list and censorship is relatively light. Access to Internet content in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan remains largely unfettered, with filtering selectively applied to only a small number of sites. However, media laws and regulations encourage some measure of self-censorship in cyberspace, and citizens have reportedly been questioned and arrested for Web content they have authored. Censorship in Jordan is mainly focused on political issues that might be seen as a threat to national security due to the nation’s close proximity to regional hotspots like Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Jordan, unlike most of its neighbors, has a free and an advanced telecommunications sector.

 News blogs
Deputy Science and Technology Minister Kong Cho Ha has announced that all Malaysian news blogs will have to be register with the Ministry of Information. he justified this by stating the law was necessary to dissuade bloggers from promoting disorder in Malaysia’s multi-ethnic society.

In May 2009, the Mexican Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), asked Youtube to remove a parody of Fidel Herrera, governor of the state of Veracruz. Negative advertising in political campaigns is prohibited by present law, although the video appears to be made by a regular citizen which would make it legal. It was the first time a Mexican institution intervened directly with the Internet. However, Mexico has yet to censor any sites.

Main article: Internet censorship in Morocco
Morocco is in ONI’s watchlist and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. As of March 2006, Morocco had blocked access to a few blogging sites, such as LiveJournal. Reporters Without Borders says that Morocco now censors all political websites advocating Western Sahara’s independence, however many Western Sahara-related blogs are still accessible. Google Earth has also been added to the list of filtered Web sites in Morocco. In 2007 Morocco’s main telecommunication operator Maroc Telecom also blocked access to YouTube for nearly a month, without giving any reason.

Since 2007 in the Netherlands one major ISP, UPC Netherlands, blocks access on DNS level to sites authorities claim are known to provide child pornography. In the second quarter of 2008 all major Dutch ISPs have agreed with Ernst Hirsch Ballin of the Ministry of Justice to also block all the sites that are on the list. The blacklist is compiled by the National Police Forces (KLPD) [79]. Ernst Hirsch Ballin has said [80] that at the moment 150 websites are blocked. It contains no websites that are hosted in EU countries and they are checked once every 2 months by Productteam Bestrijding Kinderpornografie. Providers will not be forced to use it since that would be unconstitutional according to a research done by the governmental Scientific Research- and Documentation Center (WODC)[81] commissioned by the Ministry of Justice. As of 2009 the only providers that use the filter are UPC and two small providers, Scarlet and Kliksafe. The providers that have been positive about a non-mandatory filter do not have it in use.

Norway is in ONI’s watchlist and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Norway’s major Internet service providers have a DNS filter which blocks access to sites authorities claim are known to provide child pornography,[82] similar to Denmark’s filter. A list claimed to be the Norwegian DNS blacklist was published at Wikileaks in March 2009[83]. The minister of justice, Knut Storberget, sent a letter threatening ISPs with a law compelling them to use the filter should they refuse to do so voluntarily (dated August 29, 2008).[84]

Main article: Internet censorship in Pakistan
Pakistan is in ONI’s watchlist and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Pakistan has blocked access to websites critical of the government. Currently[citation needed], the government has blocked blogs hosted on A ban on pornographic websites has also been enacted.[citation needed]. Websites promoting Balochistan and Sindh nationalism or documenting human rights abuses in those places have also been banned.[3]Since 2007, No material has been reported are banned or censored including pornographic material.2008, Youtube was banned by the government and enforced throughout the country due to the launch of an Anti-Islamic video being posted. Ban was lifted only after 5 days.

Although in Poland the Internet is basically free from state interventions there is a problem with portal censorship[citation needed]. Most popular forums are heavily manipulated by their managements through organized mass-posting of preferred views[citation needed]. This kind of manipulation may hamper discussions between people of different outlooks and falsify the representativeness of a forum.
As of December 2008, Poland’s main ISP,TPSA, started to occasionally block some websites, which they deem “improper”, most notably child pornography and adult sites, but they also block some IRC channels and they used to block website for some time. [85] At present some legalisations about Internet censorships are proposed. There are propositions to build Register of blocked web sites, based on government organ choice ( Police, Ministry of Finance, Secret Police etc.). In project administrative decisions, without court intervention, may be performed, and then chosen address would be blocked. Owner of the site would not be informed until performing blockade. Then may be possible to follow procedure to legalise blocked site.

Russia is in ONI’s watchlist and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Russia pressured Lithuania into shutting down the Kavkaz-Center website, a site that hosts videos on attacks on Russian forces in Chechnya, and reports on the Second Chechen War from a Chechen separatist perspective.[10] In February 2008, it became known that six Russian internet providers with ties to the government were blocking access to an opposition aggregate news site. After this became public, the biggest of these companies dropped the block and explained that it was “testing content filters”. The other five blocks remain in place.[86]

In 2007 a lawsuit against Savva Terentiev, a musician from Syktyvkar, was started because of a commentary in a LiveJournal blog, in which he sharply criticised local police forces. He was accused of “provoking antagonism between social groups”. Although several philological expert examinations of the text denied this accusations, arguing that this was just a relational expression, he received a one-year suspended jail sentence.[87] Censorship of health-related issues on the Internet in Russia mounts, and encompasses the entire world to English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation as well. It violates basic human rights of Russian-reading audience on health and freedom of expression.

Singapore is in ONI’s nominal category and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. In Singapore, three people were arrested and charged with sedition for posting racist comments on the Internet, of which two have been sentenced to imprisonment.[citation needed] Some ISPs also block internet content related to recreational drug use. Singapore’s government-run Media Development Authority maintains a confidential list of blocked websites that are inaccessible within the country. The Media Development Agency exerts control over Singapore’s three ISPs to ensure that blocked content is entirely inaccessible.

Slovenian National Assembly on 28 January 2010 accepted new changes to the law governing gambling which legalized Internet censorship in Slovenia, although currently just for Internet gambling web sites that run without permission of the Slovenian government. The law makes Internet service providers responsible for accessing those sites and thus requires them to install censorship equipment/systems which currently they have not yet had.

Sweden is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Sweden’s major Internet service providers have a DNS filter which blocks access to sites authorities claim are known to provide child porn, similar to Denmark’s filter. A partial sample of the Swedish internet censorship list can be seen at a Finnish site criticizing internet censorship. The Swedish police are responsible for updating this list of forbidden Internet sites. On 6 July, Swedish police said that there is material with child pornography available on torrents linked to from the torrent tracker site Pirate Bay and said it would be included in the list of forbidden Internet sites. This, however, did not happen as the police claimed the illegal material had been removed from the site. Police never specified what the illegal content was on TPB. This came with criticism and accusations that the intended The Pirate Bay’s censorship was political in nature.

Main article: Internet censorship in Thailand
Thailand is in ONI’s nominal category and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. Significant efforts have been made in Thailand to oppose sites that are representing illegal activities. Activities such as gambling, drug usage and pornography are strictly banned, using DNS control in Thailand and, more effectively, a transparent proxy. This makes the website appear to be inaccessible. Also, the government has banned sites that discuss circumventing Internet censorship.[citation needed]

Main article: Internet censorship in Turkey
Many minor and major websites in Turkey have been subject to censorship until now, including the oldest and most popular Turkish social blogging community Sourtimes and widely popular poetry and literature community On 6 March 2007, the government of Turkey blocked access to the video-upload site, with the following statement parked on the domain: “Access to site has been suspended in accordance with decision no: 2007/384 dated 06.03.2007 of Istanbul First Criminal Peace Court.”[88] The ban was met with widespread protests and lifted two days later. Youtube was banned again in 12.03.2008 with decision no 2008/251, which was then soon lifted. As of August 2008, Youtube is still banned in the country since 5 May 2008, due to two court decisions.

Beside Youtube, 853 minor and major websites are currently banned in Turkey, including the widely popular blogging site, which has been banned since August 2007 complete with all subdomains. As of October 2008, Blogger is banned too. Other prominent websites currently on ban in Turkey include Youporn, The Pirate Bay, Megaupload, Deezer, Virb, Dailymotion, Google Groups, Tagged,Netlog, Slide, GeoCities, CareerBuilder ,Alibaba, ShoutCast and in 24 October 2008 Blogspot.

Ironically, The Internet Movie Database had been lucky enough to get away from being censored due to amisspelling of its domain, resulting in a futile ban on[89]

As of September 2008, Turkey filters access to prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’ Web site. The filtering was in response to a complaint from Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar (nom de plumeHarun Yahya). Oktar is also behind the filtering of WordPress and Google Groups.

Turkey is not categorized by ONI and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. However, beside the old media control and censorship association RTÜK, a new governmental association has been recently established just for Internet control and censorship without prior court judgement as it was before. According to the 5651st law of Turkish Penal Code, all media including websites directing people to suicide, child abuse, drugs, pornography, prostitution, insulting and gambling are forbidden.Turkish Telecommute Foundation has also a website for public reports[90]. Nevertheless due to the public profile of the major websites currently on ban; juridicial, technical and ethical arguments for their complete censoring have been painfully lacking, which resulted in extensive piercing of the prohibitions via the use of proxies or change of DNS servers.

 United Kingdom
Main article: Internet Censorship in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom is in ONI’s watchlist and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list. British Telecommunications ISP passes internet traffic through a service called Cleanfeed which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to identify pages believed to contain indecent photographs of children.[91][92] When such a page is found, the system creates a ‘URL not found page’ error rather than deliver the actual page or a warning page. Other ISPs use different systems such as WebMinder [4].

Regarding CleanFeed, the list of banned websites is provided by Internet Watch Foundation (IWF).

CleanFeed is a silent content filtering system, which means that internet users cannot state if they are being regulated by CleanFeed or facing connection failures. According to a small-sample survey being conducted at 2008 by Nikolaos Koumartzis [93], an MA researcher at London College of Communication, the vast majority of UK based internet users (90.21%) were unaware of the existence of CleanFeed software. Moreover, 60.87% of the participants stated that they don’t trust BT and 65.22% of them that don’t trust IWF either to be responsible for a silent censorship system in UK.

 United States of America
Main article: Internet censorship in the United States
The United States of America is in ONI’s nominal category and is not on RSF’s internet enemy list.

In 1996, the United States enacted the Communications Decency Act, which severely restricted online speech that could potentially be seen by a minor – which, it was argued, was most of online speech.

Free speech advocates, however, managed to have most of the act overturned by the courts. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms, and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet. Many school districts in the United States frequently censor material deemed inappropriate for the school setting. In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) which requires schools and public libraries receiving federal funding to install internet filters or blocking software.[94] Congress is also considering legislation to require schools,some businesses and libraries to block access to social networking websites, The Deleting Online Predators Act. Opponents of Internet censorship argue that the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bars the government from any law or regulation that censors the Internet.[95]

A 4 January 2007 restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein forbade a large number of activists in the psychiatric survivors movement from posting links on their websites to ostensibly leaked documents which purportedly show that Eli Lilly and Company intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of Zyprexa. The Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed this as prior restraint on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets.[96] It was later held that the judgement was unenforcable, though First Amendment claims were rejected.[97]

In January 2010, a lawsuit was filed against an online forum,, by a Maldives diving charter company (see scubaboard lawsuit). The owner of the company claimed $10 million in damages caused by users of scubaboard,, and the owner of Individual forum members were named in the lawsuit as “employees” of the forum, despite their identity being anonymous except for their IP address to the moderators and owners of

The Department of Defense filters certain IP addresses. The US military’s filtering policy is laid out in a report to congress entitled Department of Defense Personnel Access to the Internet.
Google:[99] “Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google’s quality guidelines, or for other reasons, such as if the sites detract from users’ ability to locate relevant information.”

Censorship by Google refers to Google Inc.’s removal or omission of information from its services or subsidiary companies, such as YouTube, in order to comply with its company policies, legal demands, or various government censorship laws

Yahoo!:[100] Yahoo!’s terms of service state that they reserve the right to “pre-screen, refuse or remove” any content that they feel violates the terms of service or deem distasteful, however removing information is never obligatory. Yahoo! also does not reserve the right to pre-screen any information.



Venezuela’s Chavez calls for internet controls

(Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez, who is criticized by media freedom groups, called on Saturday for regulation of the Internet and singled out a website that he said falsely reported the murder of one of his ministers.


“The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms,” Chavez said. He cited German Chancellor Angel Merkel as having expressed a similar sentiment recently.

Chavez is angry with Venezuelan political opinion and gossip website Noticierodigital, which he said had falsely written that Diosdado Cabello, a senior minister and close aide, had been assassinated. The president said the story remained on the site for two days.

“We have to act. We are going to ask the attorney general for help, because this is a crime. I have information that this page periodically publishes stories calling for a coup d’etat. That cannot be permitted.”

Social networking web sites like Twitter and Facebook are very popular among Venezuela’s opposition movements to organize protests against the government. Chavez has complained that people use such sites to spread unfounded rumors.

Many opponents fear Chavez plans to emulate the government oversight of the Web used by allies Cuba, China and Iran, but the socialist leader has not given any sign that he is planning such a move.

In 2007 Chavez refused to renew the license for television station RCTV, which is now battling to survive as a cable-only operator.

The government has also put pressure on opposition TV network Globovision to soften its editorial line and last year closed dozens of radio stations for administrative breaches.

(Reporting by Eyanir Chinea; writing by Frank Jack Daniel)


The real reasons for War ,Government and religious peadophile rings , drug company test results , bank bailout plans , MP’s expences and lobby groups, anti-Israel news ,etc etc





In November 2007, “Father of the Internet” Vint Cerf stated that he sees Government-led control of the Internet failing due to private ownership.



A data haven is a computer or a network that holds data protected from government action by both technical means (encryption) and location in a country that has either no laws, or poorly-enforced laws restricting use of data and no extradition treaties. HavenCo (centralized) and Freenet (decentralized) are two models of modern-day data havens.
Purposes of data havens
Reasons for establishing data havens include access to free political speech for users in countries

where censorship of the Internet is practiced.

Other reasons can include:

Distributing software, data or speech that violates laws such as the DMCA.
Copyright infringement.
Circumventing data protection laws.
Online gambling.

There are a number of resources that allow users to bypass the technical aspects of Internet censorship. Each solution has differing ease of use, speed, and security from other options. 

 Proxy websites
Main article: Proxy server
Proxy websites are often the simplest and fastest way to access banned websites in censored nations.Such websites work by being themselves un-banned but capable of displaying banned material within them.This is usually accomplished by entering a URL address which the proxy website will fetch and display.They recommend using the https protocol since it is encrypted and harder to block.

 Java Anon Proxy
Java Anon Proxy is primarily a strong, free and open source anonymizer software available for all operating systems. As of 2004[update], it also includes a blocking resistance functionality that allows users to circumvent the blocking of the underlying anonymity service AN.ON by accessing it via other users of the software (forwarding client).The addresses of JAP users that provide a forwarding server can be retrieved by getting contact to AN.ON’s InfoService network, either automatically or, if this network is blocked, too, by writing an e-mail to one of these InfoServices. The JAP software automatically decrypts the answer after the user completes a CAPTCHA. The developers are currently[citation needed] planning to integrate additional and even stronger blocking resistance functions.

 Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Using Virtual Private Networks, a user who experiences internet censorship can create a secure connection to a more permissive country, and browse the internet as if they were situated in that country. Some services are offered for a monthly fee, others are ad-supported.

Psiphon software allows users in nations with censored Internet such as China to access banned websites like Wikipedia. The service requires that the software be installed on a computer with uncensored access to the Internet so that the computer can act as a proxy for users in censored environments.[6]

I2P is open source software that can be used for anonymous surfing, chatting, blogging and file transfers, among other things.

Tor is a free software implementation that allows users to bypass Internet censorship while granting strong anonymity.

Sneakernet is a term used to describe the transfer of electronic information, especially computer files, by physically carrying data on storage media from one place to another. A sneakernet can movedata regardless of network restrictions simply by not using the network at all.[7]

The volunteer organization Information Without Borders is attempting to implement a sneakernet routing protocol for providing cheap Internet access to developing and post-conflict regions using donated flash drives, PDAs and mobile phones. The protocol is also useful for providing free and open Internet access to people living under repressive regimes that restrict free expression by limiting access.[8]

This protocol is still under development, but actual flash-drive sneakernets are known to exist in Cuba. Flash-drive sneakernets were used in 2008 to distribute a video of a student asking why Cubans are not permitted to access web sites like Yahoo.

Most of these solutions rely on gaining access to an internet connection that is not subject to filtering, often overseas or in a neighbouring state not subject to the same censorship laws. This is an inherent problem in internet censorship in that so long as there is one publicly accessible system in the world without censorship, it will still be possible to have an access censored material.


Iceland could become a journalism haven if a proposal put forward by some Icelandic MPs, aided by Wikileaks, succeeds. Julian Assange, editor of Wikileaks, said that the idea is to “try and reform Iceland’s media law to be a very attractive jurisdiction for investigative journalists.” The article notes one area in which supporters of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative need to tread carefully: “…the troubles of the financial sector may lead some Icelanders to be sceptical of efforts to transform their country and [one supporter] is aware of the need not to make exaggerated claims.” A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK’s draconian libel laws) is quoted: “The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue ‘libel tourists’ in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written — and uploaded — at home.”


To try and control this only leads to disaster. Today thanks to government cencorship we protect peadophiles in government and the church , we cover for government financial corruption and illegal mass murder abroad and this is just the tip of the iceberg……






Please help save Wikileaks!!!! Freedom takes vigilance

February 5, 2010

Wikileaks has probably produced more scoops in its short life than the Washington Post has in the past 30 years ”
—  The National, November 19. 2009

 … serves as an uncensorable and untraceable depository for the truth, able to publish documents that the courts may prevent newspapers and broadcasters from being able to touch. ”
— In praise of… Wikileaks – The Guardian, October 20, 2009

To concentrate on raising the funds necessary to keep us alive into 2010, we have reluctantly suspended all other operations, but will be back soon.

We have received hundreds of thousands of pages from corrupt banks, the US detainee system, the Iraq war, China, the UN and many others that we do not currently have the resources to release. You can change that and by doing so, change the world. Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands and $1000, a million.

We have raised just over $130,000 for this year but can not meaningfully continue operations until costs are covered. These amount to just under $200,000 PA. If staff are paid, our yearly budget is $600,000.

If you are interested in contributing to our mission using another payment method or with a shares, property, bonds, a grant, matched contribution, bequest, interest free loan, or have any other questions, please write to

Support Wikilweaks technically

Wikileaks is currently overloaded by readers. This is a regular difficulty that can only be resolved by deploying additional resources. If you support our mission, you can help us by integrating new hardware into our project infrastructure or developing software for the project. Become patron of a WikiLeaks server or other parts of our technology, adding more pillars to the stability and balance of the WikiLeaks platform. Servers come trouble-free and legally fortified, software is uniquely challenging.

If you can provide rackspace, power and an uplink, or a dedicated server or storage space, for at least 12 months, or software development work for WikiLeaks, please write to

Support Wikileaks legally

Individuals or organizations wishing to donate lawyer time write to We provide unique legal challenges in an ongoing fight for global justice and freedom of speech. If you support our mission, join our legal team to help defend those values.

WikiLeaks would like to thank the following 18 steadfast supporters (unordered):

Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP)
The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE)
The Associated Press – world wide news agency, based in New York
Citizen Media Law Project – Harvard university
The E.W Scripps Company – newspapers, TV, cable TV etc.
Gannett Co. Inc – the largest publisher of newspapers in the USA, including USA Today
The Hearst Corporation – media conglomerate which publishes the San Francisco Chronicle
The Los Angeles Times
National Newspaper Association (NNA)
Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ)
Public Citizen – founded by Ralph Nader together with the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Jordan McCorkle, the University of Texas



Another good site is…


January 9, 2010

As a follow up to my previous post about child molesters in the Government and the blackmail potential


Here is a FOI (Freedom Of Information) request about alleged peadophiles past and present with connections to the Halls of power today.  

A Freedom of Information request to Home Office by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] and Francis.P.


Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell – Convicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child porn.

Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who’s job includes running the Tory GLA website. Arrested for allegedly downloading child porn. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

Labour Councillor (North Lincolnshire) David Spooner – Convicted and jailed for 1 year for masturbating in front of 2 young boys.

Tory Party Councillor (Folkestone – in Leader, Michael Howard’s constituency), Robert Richdale – 41 year history of crime, involving 30 convictions and 5 prison sentences. Richdales enormous criminal record, which covers 10 pages of A4 paper, includes convictions for assault, theft, causing death by dangerous driving, forgery, drugs offences, possession of an offensive weapon, and sex attacks against underage schoolgirls. The Tory Party election campaign literature described Richdale as “a family man” who had a “compassionate personality”

Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys – Convicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on children.

Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington – Convicted of downloading hardcore child porn on his PC.

Labour Councillor (Newton Aycliffe) Martin Locklyn – Convicted and jailed for 15 years for sexually abusing 3 14-year-old boys.

Prominent Labour Party activist Mark Tann (who has met Tony & Cherie at Party functions) recently got a 15-year sentence for raping a 4-year old girl on 2 separate occasions.

.Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor – Stood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys.

Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan – Forced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child porn.

Labour Party activist and serial child-molester Mark Trotter, who died from AIDS before he could be convicted.

Labour Councillor (Manchester), George Harding – Charged with indecent assault on a girl of 12.

Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy – Charged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

Tory Party Councillor (Folkestone – in Leader, Michael Howard’s constituency), Robert Richdale – 41 year history of crime,

Labour Mayor (Westhoughton/Lancashire) Nicholas Green – Convicted and jailed for 10 years for 3 rapes and 13 counts of indecent assault.

Labour Councillor (Manchester), George Harding – Charged with indecent assault on a girl of 12.

William Straw – Son of Labour Foreign Secretary, and former Home Secretary – Jack Straw, was cautioned by Police for drug dealing, amid a frantic Government attempt to cover up the matter and gag the media as to his identity. Jack Straw also has a brother who was convicted of a sex attack on a schoolgirl.

Homosexual mass murderer; Dennis Nielsen, who strangled and dismembered 16 young men in the 1980`s, was also a highly active member of Labour fringe groups such as the Anti-Nazi League, and the SWP. That’s when he wasn’t busy boiling peoples heads in a pot, or masturbating over the corpses of his victims.

Lib-Dem Council candidate (Tower Hamlets), Justin Sillman – Convicted and jailed for 2 years for sexual abuse of young boys.

Lib-Dem Councillor and Mayoral Candidate ( Sheffield ), Francis Butler- Prosecuted for indecent assault of a young boy.

Lib-Dem Councillor ( Stockport ) Neil Derbyshire – Sexually assaulted a 16-year old boy in a public toilet. He was caught with a plastic bag containing lubricant, plastic surgical gloves, a condom, and underpants.

Lib-Dem Councillor ( Preston ), Bill Chadwick – Charged with: Making an indecent photograph of a child, Incitement to rape, Incitement to murder, Incitement to kidnap, and Incitement to torture. Chadwick’s gay lover – Alan Valentine, is also a Lib-Dem councillor.

High Level Masons such as Chief Superintendent Gordon Angelsea and at least 12 of his colleagues were “let off the hook” for sexual abuse crimes on children (some of who are now dead) in the North Wales Paedophile Ring Cover-Up.

High Level Government Masons such as Lord McAlpine, ex aid to Margaret Thatcher, was accused by numerous children of sexual crimes in the North Wales Child Abuse Cover-Ups. He escaped public exposure by a specifically appointed Masonic Paedophile Judge,Lord Cullen who was appointed to the investigation and “100 year cover up” of Thomas Hamilton’s Mass Murder spree – were BOTH members of the same “boy’s club”.

Thomas Hamilton was the name of the Mass Murderer responsible for the Dunblane Massacre. He was a Freemason.Thomas Hamilton was granted a gun licence by his Masonic “brother” Inspector McMurdo, to a amass his arsenal of weapons, even although he was well known to be of “odd character” with paedophilic tendencies.
The two Liaison Officers assigned to the murder investigation of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were known to the British Police hierarchy as Paedophiles at least 3 months prior to the investigation, due to Operation Ore.

According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore ` list of subscribers to hard-core child pornography. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they Mr Gordon Brown?

BUT I think we can work that one out for ourselves……see post

This we are afraid is only the tip of the iceberg. This will be continued…

Waiting for an internal review by Home Office of their handling of this request

British establishment paedophiles and thier global partners
Grooming the next political paedophiles
What sort of people are politions?





SO do NOT expect a Tory Government to release the information ,OR even to stop MOLESTING YOUR CHILDREN!!!

PLEASE PEOPLE WE must stop these monsters having the power of LIFE AND DEATH over us and our kids!

Its the 21st Century AD and we can NOW defy the “Laws of gods” ,that do NOT appeal ,BUT we cannot defy the laws of  MEN?

If you can believe in MORALITY without god and religion, why NOT society without government ?


Switzerland has survived with less crime and higher living standards and has completely missed the destruction of 2 World Wars and completely AVOIDED the current illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the terrorist bombings that would inevitabley follow (thanks to our government sponcered terrorists)  and they managed to do all this WITHOUT A “DEMOCRATIC” GOVERNMENT

 officially the Swiss Confederation (Confoederatio Helvetica in Latin, hence its ISO country codes CH and CHE), is a federal republic consisting of 26 cantons. its Federal state, with parliamentary system and direct democracy .Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy,[1] comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, (UK/USA)where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election)  FYI “Direct democracy” is a form of ANARCHISM!

THE SWISS HAVE NO STANDING ARMY!!!!!! The Swiss Confederation has a long history of neutrality—it has not been in a state of war internationally since 1815.The Swiss Armed Forces, including the Land Forces and the Air Force, are composed of conscripts: professional soldiers constitute only about 5 percent of the military personnel.The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personal weapons, at home.



This way we can expose paedophiles in government instead of covering for them for a 100 years!!!


This would stop ” blackmailed ” MP’s using the army to invade other countries that are no threat to us and inflicting untold damage and suffering on the world.


For those who think we NEED governments please offer YOUR KIDS ,for sex and slaughter ,to these monsters!!!!!!

Hopefully it will stop them molesting mine!!

In praise of… Wikileaks ……and the Guardian

November 27, 2009
  • The Guardian, Thursday 22 October 2009
  • A brown paper envelope for the digital age, is now home to more than 1m documents that governments and big business would rather the public did not see. The site – similar to Wikipedia in style, but otherwise independent of it – serves as an uncensorable and untraceable depository for the truth, able to publish documents that the courts may prevent newspapers and broadcasters from being able to touch. This month it has come of age in Britain, hosting the Minton report on the activities of oil trader Trafigura, even while the firm was trying to use its solicitors to prevent the press from revealing its contents. It was Wikileaks, too, that this week published a membership list of the British National party, revealing how few activists it has. Earlier this year, Lord Oakeshott, using parliamentary privilege, pointed those curious about Barclays’ tax activities to Wikileaks to read the evidence. Useful in Britain, it is invaluable in less free societies, such as China, where the authorities play a cat-and-mouse game with Wikileaks’ Swedish webhosts to try to block access. So far Wikileaks has stayed ahead, with technology leaving the law lagging behind. The site exists in a sort of legal limbo, not private, but not yet fully accepted by courts as part of the public domain. It takes power away from the powerful and hands it to citizens, controversial but essential example of what the web does best: offering unrestricted dispersal of information so that people can judge for themselves.

    Wikileaks is another excellent example of Libertarianism working! Please feel FREE to check out what is happening in YOUR AREA that the government and big business and the MainStreamMedia Presstitutes DO NOT want YOU to KNOW!


    For more on this topic please see my Libertarian vs Authoritarian Today’s REAL Politic blog. Its time to take the power back!

    The Wiki phenomina has been a great benefit to all of humanity that can access it. It has been shown that the worst offenders for posting FALSE informations are the very authorities that claim its full of false information.

    According to the BBC, WikiScanner found that some editorial contributions to Wikipedia had originated from computers operated by the Diebold company, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Vatican.

    It has been shown that Wikipedia contains LESS factual errors per catagory than the encyclopedia Britanica,even with the Vatican and other world authoritarians filling it with LIES!

    It is thanks to Wikileaks that the Trifigura gag order was by-passed and the public got to hear ,NOT just about the polution and corrupt business practices BUT also the effort put into covering these work practices up ,rather than CLEAN the practices up!

    You can be very sure that YOUR POLITION will be doing everything he/she can to find away to CLOSE DOWN this ESSENTIAL SITE that ensures our very liberty at a time of global government DECIET AND CONSPIRACY!!! Wait for the effort to cast doubt on the reliablity of such sourses etc..etc.. This is the typical response , attack the messenger when you cannot attack the message!

    For more on this topic please check these blogs.

    BUT I do have to give praise to the Guardian for running such an article in praise of an uncencored and uncontrolled  internet news site.