WikiLeaks: MPAA behind Aussie ISP lawsuit (but don’t tell anybody)

As a crucial Australian copyright lawsuit goes to its High Court for consideration, a new WikiLeaks cable from the US State Department suggests that the force behind the action is anything but local. On the surface, it appears that the suit against iiNet—on the grounds that the country’s third biggest ISP hasn’t done enough to crack down on illegal file sharers—is an Australian content initiative. But according to the cable, the prime mover behind the suit is actually the Motion Picture Association of America, through the Motion Picture Association, its international arm.

The MPA, “does not want that fact to be broadcasted,” the 2008 communiqué from then Ambassador Robert D. McCallum Jr. explained. “MPAA prefers that its leading role not be made public,” the summary of the case added, to dodge the impression that it is “just Hollywood ‘bullying some poor little Australian ISP’.”

This revelation, along with earlier leaks, once again raises a disturbing question. How far are the US State Department and US-based content industries intruding into the IP affairs of other countries—particularly members of The Commonwealth?

Read the whole article at arstechnica.com

Do NOT remove all the benefits of convicted London rioters. - e-petitions #LondonRiots

Do NOT remove all the benefits of convicted London rioters.

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

Petitioners accept that it would be counter-productive to remove all benefits for those convicted of felony in the London riots. Petitioners accept that, with the root cause of the riots being mainly financial in nature, making those involved even poorer will do nothing to help the current situation, or prevent similar acts occurring again in future. Petitioners accept that removing benefits will likely increase the amount of homelessness and potential for crime. Petitioners accept that those who are actually convicted will likely be punished effectively anyway, without creating the further social tension and unrest that a cessation of all benefits would generate.

via epetitions.direct.gov.uk

Govt Opposes Attorneys’ Free Use of WikiLeaks Documents | Secrecy News

The government yesterday filed a formal response (pdf) in federal court in opposition to the public use of WikiLeaks documents by a habeas attorney who represents a client in U.S. military detention at Guantanamo Bay.  Those documents are or may be classified, the government insisted, and must continue to be treated as such.
via fas.org

Sweden vs. Assange

“If a country like Sweden — I respect Sweden a great deal. It has a long history, tradition and reputation for human rights. Now, if they start to ‘shake’ on these kinds of issues — to accommodate, to make concessions — what can we expect from other countries?”
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, Theo van Boven
via swedenversusassange.com

What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement? | MyFDL

A leaked confidentiality agreement that those doing “business” with WikiLeaks are expected to sign was obtained and published by the New Statesman. The New Statesman and other news organizations believe they have uncovered another aspect of the WikiLeaks organization that indicates it is unfit to be trusted by whistleblowers. But, for anyone who understands confidentiality agreements there may be nothing extraordinary or even draconian about the agreement.

A confidentiality agreement is essentially a non-disclosure agreement. Included are details noting the “owner of the information,” the “receiver of the information,” a definition of what it considers to be “information,” why the agreement is necessary, what information is covered by the agreement, a definition of the permitted use of the information, any exceptions to the agreement, and penalties that could be imposed if the agreement is breached.

What news organizations seem to be taking issue with, rather ridiculously, is the word “owner” and the idea that WikiLeaks might be marketing this information to media organizations.

The New Statesman and others consider the use of the word “owner” to be proof that the organization finds it has “commercial ownership over the information that has been leaked to it.” But, the word “owner” is the term that is used in these agreements. It is standard and may not be proof the organization sees itself as literally owning the information.

via my.firedoglake.com

Click the link to read the whole original post at firedoglake.com.

Assange right to slam Swedish courts: lawyers - The Local

Nearly one third of lawyers in Sweden, including best-selling author and lawyer Jens Lapidus, believe that criticism directed at the country’s legal system by WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange is warranted, according to a new survey.

“He is partially right about the Swedish legal system,” writes Lapidus, a defence attorney and author of the best selling 2006 crime novel “Snabba Cash” (‘Easy Money’), along with prominent defence lawyer Johan Åkermark, in an article published on Thursday in the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper.

The authors reference a study published in Legally Yours, a trade publication for the legal profession in Sweden, which surveyed 9,000 lawyers.

The survey, known as the Juristbarometern, revealed that 31.9 percent of lawyers answered yes when asked if they agreed with Assange’s criticism of the Swedish legal system.

According to Lapidus and Åkermark, both of whom are partners in the same law firm as Assange’s Swedish attorney Björn Hurtig, the WikiLeaks’ founder is justified in taking issue with several aspects of the Swedish criminal justice system.

Writing in DN, the two lawyers explain that Assange is warranted in questioning Sweden’s rules on remanding suspects in custody, which often prevent defence attorneys from having a chance to review material used as the basis for remand decisions until minutes before prosecutors present the evidence to a judge.

“We’re of the opinion that remand in Sweden is used in a way that many other states governed by the rule of law would find unfamiliar,” they write.

Speaking to Legally Yours, Hurtig said the statistics cited by Lapidus and Åkermark show that “mistrust of our legal system is greater than many believe”.

“The system is built up so that, in principal, the suspect doesn’t have any insight into the preliminary investigation,” he said.

In addition, Lapidus and Åkermark share Assange’s concerns about having lay judges, many of whom are retired politicians rather than trained legal professionals, preside over trials in Swedish courtrooms.

Also problematic for Assange is the possibility that, were he ever to face trial in Sweden, it would likely be held behind closed doors, a common practices when it comes to sex crime cases in Sweden.

While Lapidus and Åkermark admitted they didn’t have any statistics on closed-door trials, “our impression is that proceedings are held behind closed doors more often in Sweden in many other states governed by the rule of law”.

The authors are quick to point out, however that “Sweden has is a well functioning state based on the rule of law and in many respects is a model internationally”.

Lapidus and Åkermark emphasise that, while they “don’t care specifically about Julian Assange” or the question of his innocence or guilt, they feel a responsibility to “remove the stains that exist in our system” which Assange’s criticism has highlighted.

In February, a London court ruled that Assange could be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over sex crimes allegations stemming an August 2010 visit to Sweden by the WikiLeaks founder.

Assange’s lawyers appealed the ruling in early March and his appeal is scheduled to be heard on July 12th.

The Local/dl (news@thelocal.se)

via thelocal.se

Guantánamo Files - Lawyer Seeks WikiLeaks Access

The lawyer, David H. Remes, who represents Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani businessman accused of discussing plots against the United States with Al Qaeda leaders after Sept. 11, 2001, filed an emergency petition in the Federal District Court here. Mr. Remes is challenging a Justice Department notice on Monday that appears to prohibit lawyers from publicly discussing the leaked documents.

Mr. Remes, who has devoted his law practice to Guantánamo prisoners, asked the court to order the government to allow him “full and unfettered access to all publicly available classified WikiLeaks documents relevant to Mr. Paracha’s case.” He says he wants to be able to view the documents on his home and office computers and to “print, copy, disseminate and discuss” them without fear of punishment.

On Monday, the Justice Department’s Court Security Office sent a notice to lawyers for Guantánamo prisoners informing them that prison documents obtained by WikiLeaks, now being posted online by the antisecrecy group and several newspapers, remained classified by law.

The notice advised the lawyers, who have been granted security clearances, that they must handle the documents “in accordance with all relevant security precautions and safeguards.”

The notice did not explain what was prohibited. But Mr. Remes and other lawyers are concerned that if they view or discuss the documents, they may be stripped of their security clearances or face other punishments. “Losing his clearance will disable him from continuing to represent his current or future detainee clients,” Mr. Remes’s petition says. “Counsel is concerned that the government may even prosecute him.”

A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, said he could not comment on Mr. Remes’s petition, which he said the department would answer in court.

“We’re aware that publication of these materials has prompted questions from habeas attorneys about the unusual position they find themselves in,” Mr. Boyd said, referring to habeas cases challenging the prisoners’ detention. He said the department was studying the issues posed by the disclosure of the documents.

Since last year, when WikiLeaks published or provided to news organizations military reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and State Department cables, government agencies have struggled to respond. In the case of the Guantánamo lawyers, there is a particular irony: people without security clearances can freely read and discuss the documents, while the lawyers cannot.

Mr. Remes included in his petition an article in The Times on Tuesday about Mr. Paracha, whom a classified document described as offering his shipping business to move explosives into the United States. Mr. Remes wrote that because he could not comment on the document, “counsel could not rebut the government’s accusations.”

via nytimes.com

About the Report | Media Piracy in Emerging Economies | A Report by the Social Science Research Council

Media Piracy in Emerging Economies is the first independent, large-scale study of music, film and software piracy in emerging economies, with a focus on Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa, Mexico and Bolivia.

Based on three years of work by some thirty-five researchers, Media Piracy in Emerging Economies tells two overarching stories: one tracing the explosive growth of piracy as digital technologies became cheap and ubiquitous around the world, and another following the growth of industry lobbies that have reshaped laws and law enforcement around copyright protection. The report argues that these efforts have largely failed, and that the problem of piracy is better conceived as a failure of affordable access to media in legal markets.

Major Findings

  • Prices are too high. High prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy. Relative to local incomes in Brazil, Russia, or South Africa, the retail price of a CD, DVD, or copy of MS Office is five to ten times higher than in the US or Europe. Legal media markets are correspondingly tiny and underdeveloped.
  • Competition is good. The chief predictor of low prices in legal media markets is the presence of strong domestic companies that compete for local audiences and consumers. In the developing world, where global film, music, and software companies dominate the market, such conditions are largely absent.
  • Antipiracy education has failed.The authors find no significant stigma attached to piracy in any of the countries examined. Rather, piracy is part of the daily media practices of large and growing portions of the population.
  • Changing the law is easy. Changing the practice is hard. Industry lobbies have been very successful at changing laws to criminalize these practices, but largely unsuccessful at getting governments to apply them. There is, the authors argue, no realistic way to reconcile mass enforcement and due process, especially in countries with severely overburdened legal systems.
  • Criminals can’t compete with free. The study finds no systematic links between media piracy and organized crime or terrorism in any of the countries examined. Today, commercial pirates and transnational smugglers face the same dilemma as the legal industry: how to compete with free.
  • Enforcement hasn’t worked. After a decade of ramped up enforcement, the authors can find no impact on the overall supply of pirated goods.
via piracy.ssrc.org

About the Report | Media Piracy in Emerging Economies | A Report by the Social Science Research Council

Media Piracy in Emerging Economies is the first independent, large-scale study of music, film and software piracy in emerging economies, with a focus on Brazil, India, Russia, South Africa, Mexico and Bolivia.

Based on three years of work by some thirty-five researchers, Media Piracy in Emerging Economies tells two overarching stories: one tracing the explosive growth of piracy as digital technologies became cheap and ubiquitous around the world, and another following the growth of industry lobbies that have reshaped laws and law enforcement around copyright protection. The report argues that these efforts have largely failed, and that the problem of piracy is better conceived as a failure of affordable access to media in legal markets.

Major Findings

  • Prices are too high. High prices for media goods, low incomes, and cheap digital technologies are the main ingredients of global media piracy. Relative to local incomes in Brazil, Russia, or South Africa, the retail price of a CD, DVD, or copy of MS Office is five to ten times higher than in the US or Europe. Legal media markets are correspondingly tiny and underdeveloped.
  • Competition is good. The chief predictor of low prices in legal media markets is the presence of strong domestic companies that compete for local audiences and consumers. In the developing world, where global film, music, and software companies dominate the market, such conditions are largely absent.
  • Antipiracy education has failed.The authors find no significant stigma attached to piracy in any of the countries examined. Rather, piracy is part of the daily media practices of large and growing portions of the population.
  • Changing the law is easy. Changing the practice is hard. Industry lobbies have been very successful at changing laws to criminalize these practices, but largely unsuccessful at getting governments to apply them. There is, the authors argue, no realistic way to reconcile mass enforcement and due process, especially in countries with severely overburdened legal systems.
  • Criminals can’t compete with free. The study finds no systematic links between media piracy and organized crime or terrorism in any of the countries examined. Today, commercial pirates and transnational smugglers face the same dilemma as the legal industry: how to compete with free.
  • Enforcement hasn’t worked. After a decade of ramped up enforcement, the authors can find no impact on the overall supply of pirated goods.
via piracy.ssrc.org

Assange extradition fears are real - Unleashed (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks (Reuters: Valentin Flauraud)

Assange extradition fears are real

255 Comments

Greg Barns

Greg Barns

In theory, it ought to be difficult for the Obama administration, pressured by the resurgent and bloodthirsty Right, to demand the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from Sweden.

But the reality is that the Swedes will succumb to political pressure and undermine or sidestep the rule of law and allow the US ‘to land their quarry’.

The claim by Assange’s legal team that one of the prime arguments against their client being extradited to Sweden to face investigation over alleged sexual assault charges is that he will end up being tortured in a high security American prison, are not simply hyperbolic advocacy.

Under Swedish law the extradition of an individual to a non-Nordic or non-European Union country can only occur if the following conditions are met.

Firstly, the principle of dual criminality applies. That is, the act or alleged crime for which extradition is requested must be equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by a jail term of one year or more. So you can’t be extradited for traffic offences for example.

Secondly, extradition will not be granted for the prosecution of “military or political offences”.

And finally extradition will not be granted if the person being extradited runs a risk on account of his or her religious or political beliefs, or ethnic origin of being persecuted. And if he or she faces the death penalty the Swedes will not hand the person over to another state.

If it is assumed Sweden has an equivalent to an American official secrets or espionage law and therefore the issue of dual criminality is settled, the US could not possibly satisfy the Swedish government that Mr Assange would not face all manner of cruel and unusual punishment by security agencies and US police. Even keeping Mr Assange isolated from other detainees and locked in his cell for 23 hours a day - a common penal American practice - should be enough to stop Swedish cooperation in an extradition. Then there is the fact that US federal law in respect of the offences of espionage and treason both carry the death penalty as a theoretical sentence. Theoretical because there is no-one currently on death row who has been convicted of these offences. But Mr Assange’s hosting of a website which carried an unprecedented number of US government documents might have prosecutors arguing for the death penalty.

In short, it is hard to see how Sweden, acting strictly in accordance with its own laws on extradition, could contemplate acceding to any US request to hand over Mr Assange.

But Sweden’s track record in recent years in cases where extradition or forcible return to another country would result in human rights abuse is not one that would give Mr Assange any comfort.

In 2005 the European Court of Human Rights intervened to overturn a Swedish decision to deport two Syrian men, brothers, who were wanted in Syria over alleged ‘honour killings’. The Swedish authorities, having received information that the death penalty was unlikely to be imposed on the brothers, ordered that they been returned to Syria. The European Court upheld the brother’s argument that they feared persecution on return to Syria and noted that the Swedish government had been prepared to act on incomplete information and vague assurances from the Syrian embassy.

Four years earlier in December 2001, the Swedish authorities, again acting after obtaining assurances from Egypt that two asylum seekers would not be subjected to torture and would receive a fair trial, handed over Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza, to the Americans who transferred the men to Cairo.

There is also the political overlay in the Assange case which taints the extradition process. As we saw in this country in relation to David Hicks and Mammoth Habib it did not matter what domestic or international law conventions and rules should have been applied to their cases, the overriding consideration by the Howard government was to cooperate with the Bush White House.

As Australian diplomat and writer Tony Kevin pointed out in a briefing to federal MPs last week (at which I also spoke) the current Swedish government of prime minister Fredric Reinfeldt is a centre-right coalition heeded by the Moderate Party “which has close ties with the US Republican right. Reinfeldt and Bush are friends. Reimfeldt is ideologically and personally close to the former Bush Administration”. And, Kevin noted, that Bush’s former right hand man and Republican strategist Karl Rove is a consultant to the Swedish government on political issues.

Sweden projects an image of liberalism and determined independence but it is an illusion. So the chance of Julian Assange being whisked away by CIA operatives from Sweden is a very real one. If it happens Assange will face the same fate as Hicks and Habib - physical and mental torture over a sustained period.

Greg Barns is a barrister and writer. He is a Director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

via abc.net.au

2011-02-16 Update: US lawmakers to consider criminalizing publishing | WL Central

Peter King (R-NY), chair of the US House Committee on Homeland Security, yesterday reintroduced legislation that would extend the definition of espionage to include publishing the names of sources who collaborate with the US military or intelligence services.

King had proposed similar legislation in 2010. Last week three members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, led by chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT), reintroduced a similar bill, known as the SHIELD Act. In US congressional parlance, SHIELD appears to mean “Securing human intelligence and enforcing lawful dissemination.”

Many students of the First Amendment have pointed out the dangers to journalism and publishing in the US if the definition of espionage (traditionally understood to involve intentional and interested transmission of information to a foreign power) were to be so broadened. The ACLU argues:

If the Espionage Act were to be applied to publishers, it would have the unconstitutional effect of infringing on the constitutionally protected speech rights of all Americans, and it would have a particularly negative effect on investigative journalism – a necessary and fundamental part of our democracy,” the ACLU said in a statement (.pdf).

As Graham Greene and John le Carré have long taught us, from bitter personal knowledge of their own, the very notion of espionage is a double-bladed knife that cuts both ways.

Update:

Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) has reintroduced a related bill to the US Senate that would broadly criminalize leaks of classified information.

Unlike the proposed SHIELD Act, S. 355 does not target publication, but it would expand criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure to cover all classified information.

The bill would replace the Espionage Act’s use of the term “national defense information” with the broader but more precise term “national security information …

The bill does not provide for a “public interest” defense, i.e. an argument that any damage to national security was outweighed by a benefit to the nation. It does not address the issue of overclassification, nor does it admit the possibility of “good” leaks. Disclosing that the President authorized waterboarding of detainees or that the government conducted unlawful domestic surveillance would be considered legally equivalent to revealing the identities of intelligence sources, the design of secret military technologies or the details of ongoing military operations.

And at a time when an unprecedented number of leak prosecutions are underway, the bill’s premise that an enhanced ability to prosecute leaks is needed seems questionable. In fact, in a 2002 report to Congress, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the laws already on the books were sufficient and that no new anti-leak legislation was required.

Comment:

WL Central reporter does not understand how “national security information” is a more precise expression than is “national defence information,” although she grasps that it is indeed broader.

via wlcentral.org

Wikileaks: Libya Established Special State Security Court to Try Regime Dissidents |

Report from Telegraph:

The GOL quietly established a state security court of appeals on/about August 13, apparently for the short-term purpose of hearing the case of twelve self-described regime dissidents detained since February 16 for planning a peaceful demonstration in Tripoli calling for multiparty elections. The new court held an additional hearing on the dissidents’ case November 6. The dissidents, led by physician Idriss Boufayed, began a hunger strike on October 30 to protest their lengthy pre-trial detention. Opposition groups allege the twelve have faced “severe torture” in Libyan custody, including lengthy detention in small underground cells.

See more on the leaked cable: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294760/LIBYA…

via feb17.info