vRRitti.com, providing sentiency

Posted: Dec 15, 2010

Recent decisions by some technology companies to restrict access to or sever ties with Wikileaks highlight the difficulties companies face when governments attempt to restrict controversial information.

The Global Network Initiative does not take a position on Wikileaks decision to publish these materials or on their content, but is concerned about the implications for freedom of expression and privacy online. As citizens increasingly depend on digital communications in their daily lives, including for political discourse, GNI believes that freedom of expression and human rights must be protected in the following ways:

• Governments have an obligation to safeguard freedom of expression and must carefully weigh the implications of restricting controversial information—including in cases in which there are concerns of threats to national security or the safety of individuals.  In all cases, such decisions should respect the rule of law and due process. We urge the US government and other governments affected by the Wikileaks disclosures to adhere to this standard.
• Companies are, and should be, free to adopt and administer Terms of Use (ToU) policies for the use of the services they provide. Application of these ToU should be transparent and consistent with freedom of expression and privacy implications.
• Governments have internationally recognized obligations regarding the rights of privacy and freedom of expression of their citizens. ICT companies have the responsibility to protect their customers and ensure that governments respect those rights when they try to restrict expression or provide information on users. When faced with a government request, an ICT company should: (i) determine whether a government action is consistent with the government’s legal and other obligations to their citizens, and, (ii) based on that analysis, implement a decision-making process that protects the freedom of expression and privacy rights of the company’s customers.  
• Companies need to be transparent with their customers and other users about how they respond to government pressure or demands.  Where possible, companies should notify customers about government requests with sufficient opportunity for them to take steps to protect themselves from or respond to governmental action.

GNI believes that the Wikileaks document release and the complex issues it has raised about freedom of expression for a wide variety of companies underscores the need for companies to adopt effective policies and procedures to safeguard freedom of expression and privacy.

GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics, who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector.  GNI provides resources for ICT companies to help them address difficult issues related to freedom of expression and privacy that they may face anywhere in the world.  GNI has created a framework of principles and a confidential, collaborative approach to working through challenges of corporate responsibility in the ICT sector.  

Source 
See also:

http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/board/index.php
NGO Members: Arvind Ganesan Human Rights Watch, Leslie Harris Center for Democracy & Technology, Robert Mahoney Committee to Protect Journalists, Meg Roggensack Human Rights First
Company Members: Chuck Cosson Microsoft, Ebele Okobi-Harris Yahoo!, Lewis Segall Google
Note: Five company seats remain open for companies that join the GNI in the future.
Academic Members Rebecca MacKinnon Personal capacity, Colin Maclay Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Investor Members: Bennett Freeman Calvert Group, Adam Kanzer Domini Social Investments LLC
The following members serve as Alternate Board Members:
NGO Alternates: Mark Bench World Press Freedom Committee, Sharon Hom Human Rights In China, Kathleen Reen Internews, Eddan Katz Electronic Frontier Foundation
Company Alternates: Bob Boorstin Google, Dorothy Dwoskin Microsoft, David Hantman Yahoo!
Academic Alternates: Deirdre Mulligan Personal capacity, Ernest Wilson Personal capacity
Investor Alternates: Alexis Krajeski F&C Asset Management, Dawn Wolfe Boston Common Asset Management


http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/participants/index.php

Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, Boston Common Asset Management, Calvert Group, Center for Democracy & Technology, Committee to Protect Journalists, Domini Social Investments LLC, Electronic Frontier Foundation, F&C Asset Management, Google Inc., Human Rights First, Human Rights in China, Human Rights Watch, International Business Leaders Forum, Internews, KLD Research & Analytics, Inc., Microsoft Corp., Rebecca MacKinnon, New America Foundation, Research Center for Information Law, University of St. Gallen, Trillium Asset Management, United Nations Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Business & Human Rights (observer status), University of California, Berkeley School of Information, World Press Freedom Committee, Yahoo! Inc.

Furthermore, one can question the objected effect of releasing diplomatic files containing characterizations of world leaders by American diplomats. Naturally the media swiftly picked up these characterizations, which thereby enlarged the diplomatic crisis, but actually only articulated that what many people already thought. Those who possess the leaked documents can decide what to release and what not. There will often be a thin line between the two roads to be chosen from and therefore making such a choice requires great responsibility and strong integrity. It is questionable whether those running Wikileaks have these qualities.

And even if they do, again, we could ask: who guards this guardian’s guard?

“I would not want to live in a world without whistle blowers,” Friedman said. “But I would not want to live in a world where any individual can expose all the internal emails [of an organization].” Yet Friedman also explained that while America “on balance [is] a real force for good in the world,” Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, does not believe in or support American values.

Commenting on the role of technology, Friedman said that the benefits include the rise in globalization, but WikiLeaks demonstrates some of the potential issues with rapidly growing technology. “It’s incredibly empowering and it’s incredibly disempowering,” Friedman said.

When discussing technology, Friedman insisted that despite new inventions with Facebook and online media, personal interviews and conversations are irreplaceable. “If you want to have an impact on your world, get off Facebook and into somebody’s face,” Friedman said. “I still get enormous satisfaction from interviewing people wherever I go.”

More: 
http://thebrandeishoot.com/articles/9327

We can shut down the surveillance systems, corrupt the databases, hijack information routes, and bust through every firewall we’ll ever encounter. As the upper classes continue to rely more and more on the digital realm for everything from basic communication to promotion, we find ourselves abound in opportunities for revolt. Abound in opportunities to explode and inspire others. Abound in opportunities to be something outside of ourselves. Abound in possibilities whose only horizon is our bandwidth and skills which we have honed over years of exploration, hard work, and information sharing. If you need somebody to tell you what to do, you may as well just die because you clearly have nothing left to live for.

Direct link to pdf: 
https://hackbloc.org/svn/htz/11/HTZ11_READ_USEME.pdf

Previously:

#10.5: How to make friends with volcanoes: Anarchy, Hacking, and Mental Health

https://hackbloc.org/svn/htz/10.5/htz10-5-read.pdf

More: 
https://www.hackbloc.org/zine

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange said in an interview published Sunday he had signed deals for his autobiography worth more than one million pounds (1.2 million euros, 1.5 million dollars).

Assange told Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper that the money would help him defend himself against allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden.

“I don’t want to write this book, but I have to,” he said. “I have already spent 200,000 pounds for legal costs and I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat.”

The Australian said he would receive 800,000 dollars (600,000 euros) from Alfred A. Knopf, his American publisher, and a British deal with Canongate is worth 325,000 pounds (380,000 euros, 500,000 dollars).

Money from other markets and serialisation is expected to raise the total to 1.1 million pounds, he said.

More: 
http://tinyurl.com/27yq9ph

See also:

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Now Making $86k/year

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026597-503543.html

Previously:

War on the internet: the financial network behind WikiLeaks

http://vrritti.com/2010/12/07/war-on-the-internet-the-financial-network-behind-wikileaks/

and:

The journalist Suelette Dreyfus collaborated with Julian Assange to create Underground, a 1997 book about hackers in Australia and around the globe. Here she reveals the inside story on Assange, the geek who founded WikiLeaks and became the scourge of world governments.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-geek-who-shook-the-world-20101211-18tep.html

http://vrritti.com/2010/12/13/the-records-of-assanges-court-case-and-his-biographical-details-on-wikileaks-match-the-story-of-mendax/