6 Dec 2010 | Uncategorized
Imagine if an American politician had called for the execution of the editor of the New York Times.
Or if the newspaper’s bank had declined to handle its business any more because it considered that it had published information that promoted illegal activities. There would be an outcry and widespread denunciation of such an assault on press freedom and the First Amendment. The latest revelations today, following Wikileaks’ publication of strategic sites considered vital to the US’s national security will increase the pressure to isolate and condemn Wikileaks and anyone who supports the site and Julian Assange. Not only have Amazon and PayPal now refused to do business with Wikileaks, but students at Columbia University have been warned that they risk their job prospects if they download the leaked diplomatic cables or even make comments about the documents on Facebook and Twitter. The advice was sent to students by Columbia’s Office of Career Services, following a tip off from an alumnus working in the State Department.
It is perhaps the fallout from Wikileaks’ mass publication of diplomatic cables, rather than the content of the cables themselves, that may do the most harm in the end. When one of the world’s leading liberal educational institutions advises self-censorship to its students, rather than encouraging them to explore and read one of the most significant publications of our time, it is clear that we are in the grip of such a damaging panic that it is threatening the core principles of freedom of speech. The fury over Wikileaks’ publication of the diplomatic cables is not only undermining the United States’ historic commitment to the First Amendment, but the Obama administration’s avowed support for internet freedom (spearheaded by Hillary Clinton) now looks decidedly hollow. It is the Swiss who currently emerge as the world’s champions of freedom of information, vowing to stand up to political pressure.
Wikileaks is here to stay. Wikileaks.org is still offline, but the content can now be accessed on more than 300 mirror sites. Even if the United States and its supporters such as France were successful in removing it for good, another version or a successor to Assange and his colleagues would take their place. Prosecuting Assange under the Espionage Act (one of the most draconian pieces of legislation in US history) will solve nothing beyond chilling the freedom not only of whistleblowers, but of everyone who wants to enjoy the right to share and exchange information freely. When Daniel Ellsberg faced trial for leaking the Pentagon Papers in 1973, it was press freedom and the public’s right to know that was in jeopardy. This time it’s the freedom of expression of us all. Whether you think Wikileaks’ behaviour is reckless or admirable, we all need to take the long view in considering the consequences.
6 Dec 2010 | News and features
As hundreds of mirror sites circumvent attempts at internet censorship of the Cablegate documents, Wikileaks journalist James Ball calls on the US to remember its principles on internet freedom
(more…)
6 Dec 2010 | Index Index, minipost, News and features
Students at the US’s Columbia University have been warned that reading or sharing information from the Wikileaks Cablegate documents could jeopardise employment prospects with the State department and other government agencies. The email from the Office of Career Services told students that “Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.”
Full text of email
From: Office of Career Services
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Subject: Wikileaks – Advice from an alum
To: “Office of Career Services (OCS)”
Hi students,
We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the
State Department. He asked us to pass along the following
information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal
government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.
The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks
are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO
NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media
sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these
activities would call into question your ability to deal with
confidential information, which is part of most positions with the
federal government.
Regards,
Office of Career Services
3 Dec 2010 | Uncategorized
If it sometimes seems that the News of the World phone-hacking scandal is running out of steam, it’s not. The affair may not always be present in the headlines (most papers avoid reporting it) but it is most certainly present in the courts.
Merely counting the cases is a challenge — because they take different forms, because of court orders, because claimants are coy — but legal sources suggest that the total is now a remarkable 23, of which 20 involve people who believe they were or may have been hacking victims. The list looks like this.
First, there are eight people who have initiated legal proceedings against the News of the World.
1. Nicola Phillips, former assistant to Max Clifford.
2. Sky Andrew, football agent.
3. Steve Coogan, actor and comedian.
4. Andy Gray, football commentator.
5. George Galloway, politician.
6. Mick McGuire, former official of the Professional Footballers’ Association.
7. “High-profile individual” number 1
8. “High-profile individual” number 2
Next is a group of at least eight people who have prepared or are preparing cases against the News of the World. All have established that their names or numbers were in documents seized by police from convicted hacker Glen Mulcaire. The television personality Chris Tarrant is one, another is described as a leading sportsman, and four of the others, though unnamed, are said to be high-profile individuals.
In addition, four people who know or believe that they were victims have joined forces to seek a judicial review of alleged failures by the Metropolitan Police (a) to warn individuals they had been hacked and (b) to investigate the affair properly. These four are:
1. Lord Prescott, politician.
2. Chris Bryant MP.
3. Brian Paddick, former senior police officer.
4. Brendan Montague, journalist.
And besides all these, three further legal cases relate to the scandal in different ways.
1. At the current trial of Tommy and Gail Sheridan in Glasgow on charges of perjury — which they deny — Sheridan has alleged that his phone was hacked by the News of the World. Sheridan has documents which show that Mulcaire had his mobile phone details and PIN codes.
2. A solicitor, Mark Lewis, is suing the Metropolitan Police for libel in a case relating to statements about the total number of hacking victims. In a linked action brought by Lewis, the Press Complaints Commission has apologised and settled.
3. Proceedings of some kind are apparently under way in a case of alleged hacking by a News of the World journalist first reported in the New York Times in September. The Press Complaints Commission has said the case is sub judice.
Finally, though this one may never reach the stage of legal proceedings, the Crown Prosecution Service is considering a new file of material on hacking gathered in a recent re-investigation by the Metropolitan Police.
This formidable catalogue wave of legal activity represents many months if not years of litigation, particularly for the News of the World. It also threatens considerable embarrassment for the paper, for the Metropolitan Police and for Andy Coulson, the prime minister’s media adviser. And for the newspaper and its owner, Rupert Murdoch’s News International, which have already had to settle several cases, there is also the potential for costs running into millions of pounds.
Follow @BrianCathcart
