Oscar Swartz[1] is the man behind Bahnhof, the Swedish company that Wikileaks are using for their infrastructure needs. Oscar is a man of principle and would never sell out to the establishment the way Amazon did.
There's acutally a bunch of swedes that are standing up for the internet as we know it. Among them the guys over at the pirate bay. What's cool about this is that when you have people being activists in their own ways, for a certain cause, things tend to work out.
There's been a lot of news coverage on these things in Sweden and people got really upset when an internet surveillance bill was passed in the swedish parliament.
So we've figured it out in Sweden, but we can't do it alone. Most of the internet-hostile bills in Sweden are a result of EU policies, there needs to be a wider movement in Europe.
Also, people like Joe Lieberman have to be stopped, first "the internet kill switch" and now this? Come on, give me a break. These people are taking it too far.
The Pentagon has claimed that they could have shut Wikileaks down if they wanted to, but decided not to, reserving "that capability for threats of much higher consequence." Generally, the rhetoric coming out of the Pentagon is not nearly as charged as that emanating from overwrought, fear-mongering senators like Lieberman
Senator Lieberman:
"WikiLeaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company—whether American or foreign—should assist WikiLeaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials."
Secretary of Defense Gates:
"Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
Pentagon Press Sec.:
"At the end of the day, as you heard from the Secretary of Defense yesterday ... this creates some awkward and embarrassing situations for the United States government, it clearly puts those who cooperate with us, even some of our diplomats, in difficult positions (hopefully not endangered situations). But, at the end of the day, it does not, at least over the long term, adversely impact America’s power or prestige."
> "The Pentagon has claimed that they could have shut Wikileaks down if they wanted to, but decided not to"
WikiLeaks the organisation, or WikiLeaks the site? I bet they can shut the site down for most of the world simply by messing with internet routing in crucial points. But then, what would it do? The information is sent to news organisations directly before the public release. Torrents don't depend on their site. Everything works like before.
If they meant WikiLeaks the organisation - that would be interesting. Who exactly would they stop and how? I don't believe they know every source, or there would be no serious leaks to begin with. Also, I believe that J.A. is the same to WikiLeaks, like J.Wales is a to Wikipedia - a face, creator of some guidelines and the ultimate moderator. Even if he disappeared, we'd see some new leaks. He's probably not even reachable for the original sources - if he was, finding him would be trivial, wouldn't it?
There's acutally a bunch of swedes that are standing up for the internet as we know it. Among them the guys over at the pirate bay. What's cool about this is that when you have people being activists in their own ways, for a certain cause, things tend to work out.
There's been a lot of news coverage on these things in Sweden and people got really upset when an internet surveillance bill was passed in the swedish parliament. So we've figured it out in Sweden, but we can't do it alone. Most of the internet-hostile bills in Sweden are a result of EU policies, there needs to be a wider movement in Europe.
Also, people like Joe Lieberman have to be stopped, first "the internet kill switch" and now this? Come on, give me a break. These people are taking it too far.
[1] = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Swartz