<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<img src="cid:part1.07020803.02050009@gmail.com">
<table id="newswire-header">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><strong>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</strong><br>
February 21, 2013<br>
12:06 PM</p>
</td>
<td>
<div class="newswire_source">
<p><strong>CONTACT: <a
href="http://www.demandprogress.org">Demand Progress</a></strong></p>
<div>
<p><strong>Email:</strong> <a
href="mailto:info@demandprogress.org">info@demandprogress.org</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div id="node-header">
<h2 class="node-title">90,000 Urge Congress NOT to Co-Sponsor
CISPA</h2>
<h3 class="title">Demand Progress Calls Internet Snooping Bill
“the Patriot Act for the Internet”</h3>
</div>
<div id="content-newswire" class="clear-block">
<p>WASHINGTON - February 21 - In just 48 hours, more than 90,000
Demand Progress members have expressed their opposition to the
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which was
introduced last week by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch
Ruppersberger (D-MD).</p>
<p>Over the course of 2012, more than 200,000 Demand Progress
members emailed or called Congress in opposition to a previous
incarnation of CISPA and it's Senate counterpart.</p>
<p>Internet users can email their members of Congress by clicking
here:<br>
<a href="http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/cispa_is_back/"
title="http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/cispa_is_back/">http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/cispa_is_back/</a><br>
<br>
CISPA would encourage companies to gather information about
their customers and users and share that information with the
government without a warrant. It would preempt all existing
online privacy laws and regulations.</p>
<p>Last year, Demand Progress' Aaron Swartz dubbed the legislation
the ‘Patriot Act of the Internet.’</p>
<p>"An ever more politicized Internet public is making its voice
heard yet again: We've grown tired of the incessant
fear-mongering by politicians, and refuse to accept such
infringement of our online privacy rights,” said Aaron Swartz,
last year. “We urge members of Congress to refuse to cosponsor
CISPA, and to vote against it when the time comes."</p>
</div>
<div style="text-align:center;padding-top:13px;"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/02/21-0">https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/02/21-0</a></div>
<div class="authorBio">
<p><b>Demand Progress</b> works to win progressive policy changes
for ordinary people through organizing, lobbying, and elections
in the United States.<br>
</p>
<div class="node-header"> <span class="submitted"> Published on
Thursday, February 21, 2013 by <a
href="http://www.commondreams.org">Common Dreams</a> </span>
<div class="node-title">
<h2 class="title">US Government Conflates Media Outlet
Wikileaks with Cyber-Criminals and 'Hacktivists'</h2>
</div>
<h3 class="subtitle">New Obama administration strategy says
WikiLeaks might perform "economic espionage against US
companies"</h3>
<div class="author"> - Jon Queally, staff writer </div>
</div>
<p>In what transparency advocates and defenders of free speech see
as a troubling development, the Obama administration on
Wednesday released a multi-agency "strategy"—designed to combat
cyber-crime and foreign espionage—which makes unsettling
comparisons to the work of the government and corporate
whistleblower media outlet Wikileaks to criminal hacking
syndicates.</p>
<p><span class="image-right" style="width: 275px;"> <img
src="cid:part6.04060204.06060708@gmail.com" alt="" title=""
class="imagecache imagecache-headline_image
imagecache-default imagecache-headline_image_default"
height="158" width="275"> <span class="caption"> Defenders
of Wikileaks call the White House description of the media
outlet as a group of 'hacktivists' as blatantly false. </span></span>"Disgruntled
insiders [may leak] information about corporate trade secrets or
critical U.S. technology to 'hacktivist' groups like WikiLeaks,"
the White House document warns, belying the well established
fact that Wikileaks does not operate as a 'hacking' site but as
a clearing house for leaked documents that acts as a media
outlet more than anything else.</p>
<p>According to Wikileaks' own website, it describes itself as is
"a not-for-profit media organization."</p>
<p>Its goal, the group states, "is to bring important news and
information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and
anonymous way for sources to leak information to our
journalists. One of our most important activities is to publish
original source material alongside our news stories so readers
and historians alike can see evidence of the truth."</p>
<p>But, as <em>CNET</em>'s Declan McCullagh <a
href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57570384-38/white-house-warns-of-dangers-posed-by-wikileaks-lulzsec-other-hacktivists/">points
out</a>, Wikileak's inclusion in the new strategy document (<a
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/admin_strategy_on_mitigating_the_theft_of_u.s._trade_secrets.pdf">PDF</a>)—one
expected to be focused on "state-sponsored intrusions"—had not
been anticipated.</p>
<p><span class="pullquote">"Regardless of the US government’s
prejudice, [Wikileaks] is a media organization and a
publisher, not some “hacktivist” collective. It has a right to
publish just like other news outlets, including those in the
United States that are sometimes incredibly subservient to
corporate interests or the US government." – Kevin Gosztgola,
FireDogLake </span></p>
<p>"Especially," writes McCullagh, "in the wake of <a
href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57570187-38/chinas-cyberwar-intrusions-are-the-new-normal-faq/">disclosures
this week</a> about the Chinese military's involvement in
penetrating the networks of U.S.-headquartered companies." </p>
<p>McCullagh says that by mentioning Wikileaks—whose founder
Julian Assange remains in holed up the Ecuadorean Embassy in
London due to his fears that the US would like to prosecute him
for releasing embarrassing US government and military
documents—the Justice Department "signals that <a
href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025523-281.html">the
government's interest</a> in WikiLeaks has not abated."</p>
<p>McCullagh notes that vice president Joe Biden has <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden">called</a>
Assange a "high-tech terrorist," and that "a grand jury has been
<a
href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57546782-38/bradley-manning-offers-partial-guilty-plea-to-military-court/">empaneled</a>
in Alexandria, Va., as part of a criminal investigation of the
group."</p>
<p>And Kevin Gosztgola, writing at <em>FireDogLake</em>, <a
href="http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/02/20/white-house-strategy-to-protect-trade-secrets-names-wikileaks-criminalizes-hacktivists/">adds</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The strategy makes clear that the White House does not
consider WikiLeaks a media organization. It characterizes it
as a “self-styling whistleblowing” organization, but the word
“self-styled” indicates they are not a “whistleblowing
organization” to White House officials.</p>
<p>The organization is listed under a description of hacktivists
and even described as an example of a “hacktivist”
organization. This is blatantly false and malicious because
staffers of WikiLeaks are not known to have hacked into any
businesses or organizations to obtain information. They are
not even known to have solicited information from insiders.
All information released has been the result of submissions
from sources they are unable to identify because their
submission system was setup to protect the identity of sources
or the information has been personally handed over by a
whistleblower, who publicly wanted to be identified as the
source [as in the case of Elmer].</p>
<p>Regardless of the US government’s prejudice, it is a media
organization and a publisher, not some “hacktivist”
collective. WikiLeaks has a right to publish just like other
news outlets, including those in the United States that are
sometimes incredibly subservient to corporate interests or the
US government.</p>
<p>By including WikiLeaks in this strategy, the Obama
administration is seeking to characterize WikiLeaks as an
organization that poses a potential threat to the US economy.
Such a characterization is advantageous to military
prosecutors in the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, who
allegedly provided classified information to WikiLeaks.
Manning is charged with “aiding the enemy” by indirectly
providing intelligence to al Qaeda through WikiLeaks. His
defense maintains WikiLeaks is a media organization that
should enjoy the same legal protections the <em>New York
Times </em>or <em>Washington Post </em>would enjoy, but if
the White House is going to cast WikiLeaks as an actor that
might engage in economic espionage, it is much easier to
convince the judge that WikiLeaks is some type of
info-terrorist organization and that Manning should have known
the information could be used to injure the United States.</p>
<p>There is no reasonable justification for including
“hacktivists” in this strategy other than the fact that the
White House intends to further support the targeting of
“hacktivists” by law enforcement and intelligence
agencies. ”Hacktivists” do not pose any threat to trade
secrets and never will. If they truly are political or social
“hacktivists” and not thiefs, they will not take anything from
any businesses or organizations and they will not destroy any
of the business or organization’s website by accessing it
through the internet.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>