Julian Assange. WTF?

Julian-assange-thumb-200x150-36500 I've been closely following Wikileaks and that dirtbag, Julian Assange. International politics isn't usually my bag, so I'm holding back a post on the topic. Instead, I'll do a link-dump.

UPDATE: Here's more:

  • Amy Davidson in the New Yorker asks,
    "But, if it is permissible to use these measures against the site, why couldn’t they be used against any media organization that published classified information? Why WikiLeaks and not the Times, Guardian, or Der Spiegel (or The New Yorker)? If it’s because they and we are more respectable—what does that even mean?"
  • Jack Shafer writes, "From his jail cell, Assange becomes something he wasn't yesterday: a martyr. As martyrs go, he's not very appealing. He looks like an alien, talks more insane trash than an NBA point guard (he says he's practicing "scientific journalism"), believes that the ends justify the means, and possesses such an ego-swollen head it's a miracle that he can walk without toppling over."

44 thoughts on “Julian Assange. WTF?

  1. The information that he is releasing is dumb, but damaging. It doesn’t reveal any secret conspiracies or coverups of atrocities by world leaders. It’s nicknames for world leaders made up by diplomats. I don’t need to know that stuff. At the same time, it isn’t very diplomatic to call world leaders insane (even if they are). The end result is bad news for the US and bad news for democracy. This nonsense is going to make the US gov’t even more secretive.
    Here’s more from Drezner:
    Assange expects the U.S. government to become more insular and secretive, and therefore contribute to its own downfall. Glenn Greenwald is correct to observe that Assange and Osama bin Laden really do have the same political strategy — goad the United States into overreacting, expose the U.S. government as an imperial authoritarian power, and then watch the hegemon rot from within.

  2. Maybe the US should be more secretive? “there are now about 854,000 Americans with top-secret security clearances,” according to the WaPo. We privatize way too much of the national security complex, too.
    Fareed Zakaria says the info being dumped is actually showing that Obama’s FP is basically what he said he’d do.

  3. It also reveals that US diplomats spied on the UN (breaking a treaty), that Britain and the US colluded to break a law banning cluster bombs from UK territory, that the British government misled parliament over Diego Garcia…

  4. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-bank-that-froze-julian-assanges-bank-account-has-now-been-taken-down-by-hackers-2010-12?sailthru_m=h2r
    I could make an argument that the Great and Good in this world have effectively ceded control of everything to the IT department. Your files are only secure if the IT folks agree. Most of the IT people will be virtuous, upstanding citizens. Some won’t be.
    Even Swiss banks haven’t been able to keep secrets.

  5. While an actual whistle blower can prevent great evils, this wikileak stuff just gets worse. Comparing it to whistleblowing is like comparing a police stop of a driver who was swerving all over the road to some guy deciding to frisk everybody at the mall. The lack of specificity makes it certain far more harm than good will be done.
    Plus, he’s crossed into outright extortion.

  6. Uh, I’m not sure I understand Cranberry’s comments. How exactly is “the IT department” involved here? Or is the idea that everyone who works with computers is “the IT department”?
    Just to make this crashingly clear, both good and bad people use computers. Just like both cops and bad guys have guns (and lawyers). And many of us could stand to learn more about computer security. How does this lead to a conclusion that the “great and good have ceded control”?

  7. “At the same time, it isn’t very diplomatic to call world leaders insane (even if they are). ”
    I do agree that no particular unknown atrocities have been revealed. I do think, though, that diplomats shouldn’t be calling world leaders insane unless they want everyone to know that they’re doing so, and I want to know about it. I think that as a side effect of the FOIA laws, the US government took to classifying things that shouldn’t be classified, rather than just coping with the transparency.
    I’m also finding the actions being taken to suppress his activities in free countries to be quite distressing (though if anyone accused of a similar sex crime would be afforded the same treatment, I’m not complaining). I object to dirtbags who commit sex crimes, but I still think they should have the protections of the law.
    Not sure I understand the “internet is always great” people link. Is Clay Shirky such a person? I was going to say that I’m not an internet is always great person (I think it can seriously compromise individual privacy). But am I supposed to object to the Shirky article because of what it says? Is it an extreme position to say say that we shouldn’t “just decide to run someone off the internet for doing something they wouldn’t prosecute a newspaper for doing”? Or are we supposed to object because Shirky (who clearly has a history that I don’t know about) is saying it?
    I do think that Cranberry might be thinking of everyone who has “superuser” type access to computers as being part of the IT departments. We don’t know, though, yet who actually leaked these documents, do we? I guess it could have been one of the regular 800K folks with some kind of clearance.

  8. The “insurance” file info will be leaked. The only question will be what level of distribution it gets. If there’s anything actually damaging to the US, it will be widely distributed by anti-American outsiders. If it’s damaging to Pakistan/China, etc. who knows?

  9. From the first part of the New Yorker profile, “The secretiveness stems from the belief that a populist intelligence operation with virtually no resources, designed to publicize information that powerful institutions do not want public, will have serious adversaries.”
    Yup.

  10. One of the first (of several) sources of bank data on German tax evaders: Kieber was considered an excellent computer specialist and, as his attorney Robert Müller says, a highly intelligent, “inconspicuous and sensitive man who speaks Spanish well.” His job at LGT was to digitize all of the paper documents at a subsidiary of the bank, LGT Treuhand. This explains why the stolen data collection contains so much information, including contracts, meeting minutes, handwritten notes — essentially the bank’s entire inventory of information. Kieber had been given exceptional access to the archives of LGT Treuhand.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,537640,00.html
    Manning was a 35F intelligence analyst with a Top Secret/SCI security clearance.
    According to the Army’s web site, analysts in this position “use information derived from all intelligence disciplines to determine changes in enemy capabilities, vulnerabilities and probable courses of action.”
    Duties include receiving and processing incoming intelligence reports and messages and maintaining intelligence records and files.
    In chats with Lamo that Wired.com has examined, Manning said he had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRnet, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level.
    The networks, he said, were both “air-gapped” from unclassified networks, but the environment at the base made it easy to smuggle data out.
    “I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will.”
    “[I] listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history,” he added later. ”Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counterintelligence, inattentive signal analysis … a perfect storm.”
    Regarding the State Department cables specifically, Manning told Lamo, “State dept fucked itself. Placed volumes and volumes of information in a single spot, with no security.”

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/state-department-anxious/
    By “ceded control,” I mean, do the people forming the policies at the highest level understand how their systems function? It’s possible for any employee of any organization to walk out the door with your secrets tucked on a DVD or zip drive. How do you secure a system if you don’t understand it? If many positions of power are held by Ivy League graduates from the ’60s and ’70s, how many of them understand the structure of the computer networks we all rely on? Computer Science courses certainly weren’t popular choices for up-and-coming young lawyers at that time.

  11. It isn’t that they don’t understand in all cases. Often, there is no way for people to do their jobs efficiently (or at all) with strict access controls blocking data. That said, HIPPsand some bad press was enough to get the admins at one of my job sites to disable all writeable drives and USB ports.

  12. This is not about people at the highest levels. Few CEOs understand the detailed workings of their supply chain, for example, yet they are still able to manage them.
    The idea of allowing any type of writeable media to attach to a machine holding data of that volume and sensitivity is just amazing to me. This is about a mid-level manager f*cking up, frankly, and has very little to do with the powers that be. Except that maybe they should be paying more attention to IT and not just treating it as a cost center/something to be outsourced.
    I would agree with Cranberry that there is not sufficient understanding of the depth of risk taken on when ignoring these matters. But I’m still miffed at the idea that “the IT department” is filled with evildoers trying to take over the world.

  13. “But I’m still miffed at the idea that “the IT department” is filled with evildoers trying to take over the world.”
    Sorry to offend–and I don’t want to imply that the people who maintain company networks are evildoers. I was coming at the topic from the viewpoint that our computer networks are essential for public and private business. Even the local school needs to have someone on staff who understands computer networks. And yet, for a vast percentage of the population, it’s as if everything related to this vital part of our society were written in Greek. (Ancient or Modern, take your pick.)
    “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” Would it help if I changed “IT department” to “those who understand computer technology”?

  14. “But I’m still miffed at the idea that “the IT department” is filled with evildoers trying to take over the world. ”
    What, they’re not? I think you should embrace it. Maybe we’ll get IT department jokes like the lawyer jokes.
    I think the Lamo story (as well as the hundreds of inadvertent exposures of medical information/credit card information/. . . .) shows how susceptible our information is to even casual knowledge of computer systems. I also think it will be nearly impossible to lock up the systems sufficiently while still maintaining usability and the answer to Wikileaks has to be a more careful protection of really important data (i.e. keep it on paper in locked safes accessible to only a few, or on computers that are unconnected to the rest of the world or writable devices in protected areas) and to recognize that less important data is not secure and change our behaviors (and reaction to that information) accordingly.
    In this digital age, if you call Berlosconi insane, for example, or diagnose him with NPD, it will become public information. So don’t say it unless you want it to be public.

  15. In this digital age, if you call Berlosconi insane, for example, or diagnose him with NPD, it will become public information. So don’t say it unless you want it to be public.
    That would make it impossible to conduct US foreign policy. Not that specific example so much, but in general it is impossible to say the truth without greatly insulting somebody and pointless to have a whole bureau to collect information if they cannot communicate it in writing if it might matter.

  16. “That would make it impossible to conduct US foreign policy. Not that specific example so much, but in general it is impossible to say the truth without greatly insulting somebody and pointless to have a whole bureau to collect information if they cannot communicate it in writing if it might matter.”
    Right. If a major world leader is nutty as a fruit cake, it is the duty of the State Department to find that out and inform the president. That’s one of the reasons that we’re paying for those billion dollar embassies. Otherwise, we should just dissolve the State Department, stay home and read the NYT.

  17. I don’t like Assange much, and I’m not terribly interested in the stuff that is coming out of the cables. But I don’t like the massive political pressure to shut him down either, with PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard etc all ‘persuaded’ by the US Gvt to withdraw services from Wikileaks. If wikileaks is illegal, take it to court. Otherwise, leave it alone.

  18. re: massive political pressure. It’s a brave new world.
    Assange is operating as a stateless person. Wikileaks and the Internet in general can’t be governed by one country. He is producing information that can’t be shut down by one country. Even if the US closes down his operation here, I read it on a mirror website coming out of Finland or whereever. His finances come from international sources. Is this the first time that multiple governments and multinational corporations, which are like their own countries in a way, have worked together to stop someone who refuses to play by any rules? Democracies need rules and laws, and Assange is an anarchist who is trying to tear them down. I don’t think Assange is a whistle-blower or someone who is trying to make government more accountable — I would support him if that was the case — I think he’s a massive ego who is interested in mindless destruction. He has an awesome tool, the Internet, to aid him, and the International community is working together to stop him. Wikileaks isn’t formally illegal, because we don’t have the structure to govern these sorts of things. That’s going to change.

  19. Ellsburg was, to my knowledge, never accused of a sexual assault by any source that was close to credible. Also, Ellsburg was an analyst who released a completed report, not a dump of raw information.

  20. “Wikileaks isn’t formally illegal, because we don’t have the structure to govern these sorts of things. That’s going to change. ”
    But, until it does, we have to operate under the rule of law, not wishful thinking.
    Yes, the sexual assault charge has to be taken seriously and I have no objection to it being treated exactly as any such charge would be targeted against someone else. That, in fact, is a change between 1971 and now. I welcome this change, as long as we remember the rules of law in that case as well.
    But the rest of it, yes, the exact same arguments were made in the Pentagon Papers cases.
    I think folks can and should use the law to try to get the results they desire. I suspect, however, that the laws of the United States (and specifically our Constitution, which cannot easily be changed) will have little power to stop Assange. Our laws simply do not give us the power to prohibit folks with “massive egos interested in mindless destruction” as opposed to “someone who is trying to make government more accountable” from promulgating their information and ideas. His personal ego, motivation and intent are not relevant. What he’s done is. Did he violate a law? If he did, we can prosecute him. If he didn’t, we can’t, even if you think he’s scum.
    Our tools have to be to prevent and prosecute the leakers (not the republishers).

  21. Reducing the number of classified documents from 16,000,000 annually might also be helpful.
    And the people who brought you Watergate started by breaking into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office and making a concerted effort, aided by White House resources, to spread the information they got from the psychiatrist’s office in order to undermine Ellsberg. I’ve seen this movie before.
    Is Wikileaks set up to go on without Assange, I wonder. Because the next act in this film is extradition from Sweden (rendition being unlikely in something so high-profile)(and it seems Sweden is unlikely to hang on to him for something that appears to have a $700 fine as the penalty) and a long time languishing while the legal machinery turns. No need for a guilty verdict of any kind: deny bail and then just investigate for a year or more. I wonder if any judge has got the guts to refer DOJ to the reply in Arkell vs Pressdram.

  22. If Assange were a Chinese dissident who revealed an enormous amount about how the Chinese state functions which did not directly reveal additional violations of human rights but explained the calculations, discussions and mindsets which informed how the Chinese state approaches the suppression of speech and activism, how it sees its own citzenry, we’d be viewing him as a hero. Even though China would be making the same bleating noises we’re making about how its sovereignty was violated, its internal business disrupted unfairly.
    The current dump of documents reveals no atrocities per se, but the point here of a site like WikiLeaks is that it is up to an informed citizenry to know what their government is doing not just at the level of major policies but at the level of everyday functionality. It is in the everyday calculation of bureaucrats that some of the most consequential errors of judgment are made: regimes are named as enemies or problems, projects that will become a gushing pipeline of corruption are envisioned, elites and heads of state are given implicit US go-ahead to do something that we’ll all regret later. The point is that we as citizens deserve to know far more than we are allowed to know so that WE can decide what matters, what’s good and bad. Right now everything in those cables is known by many people in governments around the world and by various experts and information brokers (journalists, think tank policy experts). Both of those groups have made palpable, searing errors of judgment in the past about deciding what a wider public is entitled to know and what it is not entitled to know.
    The argument that because WikiLeaks is stateless, a campaign of massive intimidation, illegal cyberwarfare, and so on is necessary and justified, is an argument that would do China and other repressive states around the world proud. If you think the United States government, EU governments and others will stop at WikiLeaks if they can carry this action out successfully, you are nuts. This will become the new way to deal with any information a government doesn’t like, any publication they disdain. The Bush White House argued that numerous revelations about misconduct in Iraq were harming national security: envision them armed with the tools being used against WikiLeaks now and with the precedent of many policy elites and courts saying that this is okay because information is now “stateless”. Approving of what’s being done to WikiLeaks is pretty much like approving of the use of torture in Gitmo because, after all, those prisoners were stateless and it is a Brave New World.

  23. “Right now everything in those cables is known by many people in governments around the world and by various experts and information brokers (journalists, think tank policy experts). Both of those groups have made palpable, searing errors of judgment in the past about deciding what a wider public is entitled to know and what it is not entitled to know.”
    I haven’t read deeply into the Wikileaks thing, but I was very struck by the revelations that the Saudis, Jordanians, and Bahrainis were freaked out about Iran and wanted the US to attack Iran to stop their nuclear program. That’s completely not the story we were getting a couple years back where Bush (the cowboy) was supposed to be unilaterally moving against Iran at Israel’s instigation. It would have been very handy to know for sure at the time that fear of the Iranian nuclear project was common in the Arab world (although common sense would suggest that militarily weak oil countries might be very concerned about Iran). Of course, who is going to talk openly to our officials in future about sensitive issues if they can’t count on confidentiality? As other people have said, Assange may unwittingly make the world a less peaceful place by hurting diplomacy as an institution.
    I wonder if the correct move against Assange isn’t OJ style civil suits by anyone harmed by his revelations.
    I’m still waiting for the Russian diplomatic cables.
    http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2009/04/15/political-pictures-vladimir-putin-whose-funeral/

  24. I wasn’t necessarily approving or disapproving of what happened to Assange in the comment that I left. I was just marveling at events. Assange represents an entirely new threat to nations and nations are responding in an entirely new way. It’s really amazing. Henry at CT wrote a very similar post (but much more thoughtful).
    On Twitter, I was more supportive of the crackdown on Assange, but that was before he was arrested. Not sure how I feel about that.

  25. …but I was very struck by the revelations that the Saudis, Jordanians, and Bahrainis were freaked out about Iran and wanted the US to attack Iran to stop their nuclear program.
    That’s actually a pretty good example of something everybody would know but nobody (in office) could say outloud.

  26. “I wonder if the correct move against Assange isn’t OJ style civil suits by anyone harmed by his revelations. ”
    This is related to my take as well. My concern about the “leaky” culture that Wikileaks is advocating is the damage to personal privacy. The offices/agencies/and governments? Well, I think I have a right to know what they’re doing. Someone who is personally harassed because of legitimate decisions she made as a member of the secret service (or CIA)? That’s a problem. And, agencies are always made up of people.

  27. I found the article on the pirate seizure of the Ukrainian/Somalian arms shipment revealing (and worth knowing). I’m simply unconvinced that we should keep such info secret. Diplomacy has always relied heavily on secrecy, and secrets “everyone” knows and doesn’t talk about, but at the dawn of the age of information, I think this might just be a habit, and not an actual good with practical benefits. I think we’re going to try the experiment (at least in the free countries).
    I see the situation as being analogous to doctors who would prefer a world in which their patients didn’t do google searches. I don’t think google med is always good and even feel that it’s frequently bad. But, in a free and empowered world, there’s no solution but to deal with the availability of information.

  28. My concern about the “leaky” culture that Wikileaks is advocating is the damage to personal privacy.
    That’s what I’m worried about also. Government servers contain a great deal of information about me.

  29. Does anybody else feel like the post-Assange-arrest battles between governments, politicians, corporations, and Internet vigilantes running bot-net armies is something straight out of a Neal Stephenson novel? I swear I could be reading Snow Crash or Cryptonomicon, but instead it’s the news.

  30. “something straight out of a Neal Stephenson novel?”
    Yes.
    And, in light of my current viewing on Netflix (the Terminator chronicles) I am finding it very very eery that our GPS Navigation system has started guessing where we want to go and automatically started instructing us to go there (for example, leave the house at about 9 AM, and the navigation system automatically starts directing us to my spouses workplace). Fortunately the world is not so far gone that we start listening to its instructions and end up where it wanted us to rather than where we want to go, and it hasn’t yet taken over the car. But, I worry.

  31. (for example, leave the house at about 9 AM, and the navigation system automatically starts directing us to my spouses workplace the OTB parlor.

  32. Medical information is a great point of comparison. Doctors have been pushing to find ways to shut down sites which post reviews of doctors or otherwise provide information about their track record, and to control sites provisioning medical information. As BJ says, it’s true that the quality of reviews and information is often low or misleading. On the other hand, the quality of information controlled by doctors about medicine and the quality of care is often low or misleading in completely different ways, particularly when it involves collaborations between researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Given that this is a choice between two untrustworthy pipelines for information, the only possible pathway for information and decision-making to improve in the long run is to prevent efforts to close or restrict the flow of information.
    At some level, if you don’t believe that more eyes on information can produce something approaching a judicious weighting of what is and is not important, what is and is not consequential, you really don’t believe in democracy. I understand feeling that democracy is not working out all that well at the moment (obligatory Winston Churchill quote, etc.) but if one is going to argue for a more oligarchic vision of the political class being allowed to go about their business unmolested and in secrecy until they somehow cross a magic line into genuine misconduct (which would be impossible to determine in the absence of transparency) then let’s argue for it and clear away the red herring of WikiLeaks and Assange and all that.

  33. The penalties for leaking classified information are still quite a bit higher than for dumping some guy’s medical records on the web (as PFC Whatever is likely to learn), but controls on that type of information have been getting stricter. People can, and are, fired for looking at records of people they should not look at whether they release them or not. On the one hand, it makes things like discovery harder in the case of a malpractice suit. On the other hand, I want my own medical records (so long as I can be linked to them) to be accessed only with my permission or when needed to treat me.
    Unless you can think of a way for society to function without the government collecting a vast amount of personal detail about my life, I’m not going to be very enthusiastic about any “openness” where disgruntled employees and wandering Australians release whatever they can.

  34. Not all information is useful. Information for information sake can be very dangerous. It wouldn’t be wonderful, if a group of college students found out that some of them were called morons by the faculty in private conversations.
    Diplomacy and foreign affairs have traditionally been considered areas where some information is withheld from the public. Where you draw that line between national security concerns and public information is another story, but there has always been that notion that should be some sort of line. The Supreme Court has maintained that notion in multiple court decisions. The problem in Assange’s case is that there is no international supreme court to make those distinctions between useful public knowledge and destructive public knowledge. So, we’re ending up silencing him in a very questionable manner.

  35. “The Supreme Court has maintained that notion in multiple court decisions. ”
    The US government is allowed to keep things secret. They’re not allowed to prevent the re-publication of information that has ceased being private (unless you are aware of case law in the US that I’m unaware of). We have a very broad and extensive free speech law in this country.
    I, personally, am perfectly willing to prosecute the people who leaked the information, if we can find them, and if we prove that they violated laws, we can jail them.

  36. “The US government is allowed to keep things secret. They’re not allowed to prevent the re-publication of information that has ceased being private (unless you are aware of case law in the US that I’m unaware of).”
    Exactly. That’s called prior restraint. Can’t do that. (US v. Nixon) But the government is allowed to put aside information that they believe would be damaging to national security and not allow it to be published. (What information would be damaging to national security is a matter of debate though.) And the SC has also maintained in US v. Nixon that the gov’t is allowed to prosecute people who illegally leak information.
    My point was simply that there is a long standing notion that some information should not be widely distributed, because it might be damaging to national security. I was responding to Tim’s comment that all information is a good thing.

  37. All information is not a good thing. The United States government, and other governments in the world, as well as most private corporations have demonstrated amply in the last forty years that they are not at present reliable judges of what information justifiably ought to be withheld from public view.
    That also goes for universities, by the way, who presently hold back information about medical research and the pharmaceutical industry, the financing of college sports, retention rates and tuition, quality of instruction and a good deal else that the public at large is very much entitled to see much more information about. Sure, if that meant also releasing confidential discussions about particular students or legitimately private personnel records, that would be a very bad thing that I would oppose. At some point, however, keeping information concealed that ought to be public or transparent in the name of protecting legitimately private business is rather like taking hostages. Maybe WikiLeaks is a hostage rescue in which some of the hostages are going to get killed–and there’s an argument that this is occasionally something that has to be done if you’re not going to endlessly concede to hostage takers whatever they want.

  38. I wouldn’t liken Wikileaks to a hostage rescue. I would compare it to opening the doors of a prison. A few wrongly convicted individuals would be freed, sure, but there would be a lot of petty criminals let loose in the streets to knock of 7/11s and pick pockets in Times Square. There would also be a couple of truly heinous individuals that would be released.
    And who asked Assange to open these doors to the prison? Was he elected by anyone? Is he even a citizen of my country? Why should he be the judge of what information I should read, rather than my elected representatives?

  39. “Does anybody else feel like the post-Assange-arrest battles between governments, politicians, corporations, and Internet vigilantes running bot-net armies is something straight out of a Neal Stephenson novel? I swear I could be reading Snow Crash or Cryptonomicon, but instead it’s the news.”
    I was thinking Hopscotch, the 1980 movie with Walter Matthau as the disgruntled CIA guy who is sending out chapters of his memoirs while on the run.
    “That also goes for universities, by the way, who presently hold back information about medical research and the pharmaceutical industry, the financing of college sports, retention rates and tuition, quality of instruction and a good deal else that the public at large is very much entitled to see much more information about.”
    Doesn’t that traditionally include crime, too?

  40. “Why should he be the judge of what information I should read, rather than my elected representatives? ”
    He hasn’t forced you to read anything at all. What he’s made possible is to allow me to read and see things that I believe my elected officials are wrong to suppress (two examples being the Somalian arms deals & the cockpit recordings of the photographer being shot).
    The NY Times ran an op-ed called “Words a Cell Can’t Hold.” Other governments are trying their best to hold those words, and they’ll succeed, in their more repressive countries. But, I can read them here, in our free country and though I’m not naive enough to believe that’ll make all the difference, it’s a pretty concrete reminder of why I want unfettered access to information (even with its occasional dangers).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s