In early July, users of AlphaBay, one of the largest darknet marketplaces, panicked when their go-to supplier of illegal drugs, weapons, and other illicit items unexpectedly vanished from the internet. As is often the case when darknet marketplaces go down, many were wary that the moderators may have purposefully closed the site and made off with shoppers’ money. Though AlphaBay’s moderators quickly took to Reddit to assure users that they were working to restore the site, the internet panic left many wondering more about the mysterious “dark web” and its contents. What is this hidden side of the internet really about? And can any good be found in the dark? Read on to find out.

Deep Web vs. Dark Web

When you go online to browse social media, read the news, or look up directions, you’re using what’s called the “surface web.” While most of us stick to the surface web for our daily use, the truth is that it’s just a sliver of what’s available on the internet.

The deep web, which experts estimate makes up about 90 percent of the internet’s content, is comprised of all the web pages that aren’t accessible through public search engines. Library search engines, government databases, and your personal email account are all examples of pages on the deep web.

Many internet users confuse the deep web with the dark web, but the dark web is actually a tiny subsection of the deep web. It is comprised of all the hidden content existing on darknets, or encrypted networks that require use of specific software or tools to access. Darknets are specially designed to provide anonymity to users, making user presence on the dark web undetectable.

The dark web is best known to the public as a safe haven for salacious and criminal enterprises–the drug and weapons trades, child pornography, and the sale of stolen personal information, like bank accounts. But there are individuals on the dark web with nobler intentions, like whistleblowing. Wikileaks, for example, is a notorious dark web site that allows whistleblowers to anonymously upload classified information to the site. Civilians may also use darknet software to access social media in countries where sites like Facebook and Twitter are banned, or to spread news in times of censorship and political unrest.

How to Use the Dark Web

The most common way to access the dark web is using a free software called Tor, originally short for “The Onion Router,” which allows users to anonymize their web pages and their presence on the internet.

Tor was originally created by U.S. Naval Research Laboratory employees in the mid 1990s, and receives 60 percent of its funding from the U.S. government. It hides users’ IP addresses (the unique code that attaches your internet activity to your computer) by sending traffic from their computer and server to other, random points, “like anonymous bagmen trading briefcases in a parking garage,” according to Wired.

Users of Tor can access the surface web as normal, but can also browse websites that run Tor themselves–that’s where the hidden side of the internet exists. Tor websites don’t have a normal URL like Facebook.com, but instead consist of a jumble of seemingly random letters followed by “.onion,” like wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion for Wikileaks. This means that to access a Tor website, you most often need to know the exact web address.

Tor is working on developing its anonymity capabilities even further, Wired reported in January. Tor Project co-founder Nick Mathewson told the tech magazine that software released later this year will allow users to keep their sites completely secret, even from other Tor users.

“Someone can create a hidden service just for you that only you would know about, and the presence of that particular hidden service would be non-discoverable,” Mathewson told Wired. “As a building block, that would provide a much stronger basis for relatively secure and private systems than we’ve had before.”

Who Uses the Dark Web?

Criminals

The anonymous sale and exchange of illegal substances is responsible for most of the dark web’s notoriety. One of the most famous darknet marketplaces is the Silk Road, which was shut down in 2013, only to re-appear in various iterations. Most sites use bitcoin, rather than PayPal or credit cards, for transactions, since the e-currency allows customers to maintain their anonymity.

In June, Interpol launched a digital forensics course for wildlife crime investigators, to crack down on use of the dark web for the illegal trade of ivory and exotic animals.

Hackers have also been known to sell personal information, like login details for bank accounts or email accounts. In March 2015, thousands of active Uber account usernames and passwords were being sold for as little as $1-$5 on darknet marketplaces AlphaBay and ThinkingForward.

Dozens of hitmen are also available for hire on the dark web, but many sites, like BesaMafia, have been proven to be scams, or set up by law enforcement to catch people plotting murder.

“Normal” People

If you are unfamiliar with the dark web, you may be surprised to learn that many of its users are “Average Joes” (i.e. not internet-based arms dealers), who are interested in maintaining their internet privacy for less malicious reasons.

Politicians conducting secret deals, internet stalking victims wishing to keep their location private, and law enforcement officials investigating crimes are a large portion of the dark web’s user population. In a 2016 post on TurboFuture, blogger Dean Walsh noted the absurdity of these various populations interacting with terrorists, cybercriminals, and hackers.

“The fact that so many of the dark web’s users are enemies also leads to a strange dynamic,” Walsh writes. “I was tickled to see website security experts and criminal hackers sharing the same forums to discuss their common interests in computer security whilst hardly recognizing that they are nemeses.”

Activists and Journalists

The anonymity provided by dark web sites can also be a force for justice. Activists have been able to shed light on dire situations while avoiding detection in countries where oppressive regimes prevent civilians from using social media, or otherwise censor content posted on the internet.

Nima Fatemi, an Iranian activist and contributor to the Tor Project, taught friends and family how to use the service during a series of riots and protests in Tehran in 2009. Fatemi told Rolling Stone that Tor allowed him and others to post information about what was actually happening, while state television was “just showing photos of flowers and stuff.” “I found Tor and thought, ‘This is the tool.’ It was peace of mind,” Fatemi told Rolling Stone. “I felt it a duty because so many people outside of Iran had no idea that we were protesting.”

Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation encourage protesters and journalists to use Tor networks to protect their identity. The non-profit news organization ProPublica recently launched a Tor version of its website, which means readers can safely read the publication’s articles undetected. A ProPublica spokesman told Wired that the development will make the website safe for users in locations like China, where heavy government censorship can affect internet content. Facebook also has a Tor version, which it says many of its users access on the regular.

“Wikileaks” Courtesy of Sean MacEntee : License (CC BY 2.0)

Terrorists?

While there is some evidence of ISIS militants and supporters using the dark web and other Tor-protected services to recruit and fund their efforts, researchers at King’s College London found relatively “little militant, extremist presence” on the dark web. Thomas Rid, one of the researchers who co-authored the paper Cryptopolitik and the Darknet, told Quartz that dark web sites are not very useful for quickly and effectively spreading propaganda.

“Hidden services are sometimes slow, and not as stable as you might hope,” Rid said. “So ease of use is not as great as it could be. There are better alternatives.”

Conclusion

When dark web activities make headlines, it’s usually for something nefarious. This criminal side will continue to be newsworthy as the NSA and FBI crack down on illegal darknet marketplaces like the Silk Road, and stolen consumer data on dark web sites. But beyond the child pornography, drug sales, and hitmen for hire, there are activists, journalists, and everyday internet users making use of the dark web. As sites like ProPublica and Facebook turn to Tor for security purposes, the lighter side of the dark web could have its moment in the sun.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unraveling the Dark Web appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed “WikiLeaks” coming up in the news a few times lately. Recently, its founder, Julian Assange, saw the Swedish investigation into rape allegations levied against him suspended–although he does still face arrest if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London. And Chelsea Manning, who leaked a massive number of documents to WikiLeaks, was just released from prison after her sentence was commuted by former President Barack Obama.

Wikileaks, which was launched in 2006 with the purpose of providing government and other relevant documents to citizens, has been all over the news since its inception. But what exactly is it, who is its founder, and why do you need to about it? Read on to learn more.

The Origins of WikiLeaks

Wikileaks officially launched in 2006 and the first document was posted in December of that year, but the domain name “WikiLeaks” was registered that October.

WikiLeaks calls itself a “not-for-profit media organization” that seeks to increase transparency worldwide. Despite the similarity in names, there’s no connection between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia. Instead, WikiLeaks is associated with an organization called “Sunshine Press,” which handles some of the private aspects of WikiLeaks’ business.

WikiLeaks states its mission as:

Our goal 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 (our electronic drop box). 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.

Australian Julian Assange is usually attributed as its main founder–although there are many other people, some anonymous, who worked on the project. Also associated with the project was investigative journalist Gavin MacFadyen, Assange’s mentor. He was the director of WikiLeaks. Before his death in 2016, MacFadyen founded the Julian Assange Legal Defense Committee. Sarah Harrison, a British journalist and researcher, has also been publicly identified as one of the organization’s associates. She’s best known for aiding Edward Snowden’s trip out of the U.S. after he leaked a trove of classified documents. Many of the other people associated with WikiLeaks are anonymous, but the organization claims that they include “accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians, and others.”

How Does WikiLeaks Operate?

The organization is somewhat secretive in how it operates. But it is currently funded by donors and has no one permanent location or office. It has servers in multiple countries and claims it does so to protect the organization in case one country decides to crack down on its operations. In 2016, Assange told Der Spiegel that the organization had posted over 10 million documents in 10 years. According to WikiLeaks, it is sent documents anonymously through email or other anonymous electronic means, and then those documents are vetted and uploaded–although it is important to note that there has been significant criticism about the veracity of some of those documents. WikiLeaks has occasionally worked with media organizations, including Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and The New York Times, although its relationships with some of those organizations have fluctuated over the years.

WikiLeaks and Well Known Whistleblowers

Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning is one of the most widely-known names associated with WikiLeaks. Manning, a U.S. soldier then known as Pte First Class Bradley Manning, sent more than 720,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks in 2010. At the time, she was working as an intelligence analyst. One of the most notable things included in this leak was video footage of a U.S. helicopter firing on and killing Iraqi citizens and journalists in 2007. She also leaked State Department cables, information related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and data about the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Manning was convicted of 20 charges associated with this leak, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. President Barack Obama commuted most of Manning’s sentence before he left office. When she was released in May 2017, she had spent seven years in prison. Manning’s sentence was controversial; many claimed it was too harsh, including advocates for whistleblower protections, transparency, and some human rights groups like Amnesty International. Others claimed that the punishment fit the crime. President Donald Trump, for instance, has called Manning an “ungrateful TRAITOR.”

Manning’s punishment was complicated by the fact that she is a transwoman who was confined in a men’s prison. Manning’s difficulty transitioning while incarcerated was made public, and her struggles to obtain that care worried human rights advocates.

The video below discusses Chelsea Manning’s case in more detail:

Edward Snowden 

Perhaps the most recognizable whistleblower in the world is Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for the CIA and then for well-known government consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. In 2013, he leaked hundreds of thousands of documents that, among other things, revealed the NSA’s surveillance of American citizens as well as information about British surveillance programs.

Snowden did not release this information to WikiLeaks, instead, he gave the documents to media sources. According to Snowden, the only two who were given the full array of documents were Glenn Greenwald, who worked for The Guardian and Laura Poitras, who later made “Citizenfour,” the award-winning documentary about Snowden. However, in the aftermath of the leaks, Snowden was aided by WikiLeaks-associated individuals. After Snowden fled the United States, Sarah Harrison helped him get set up in Russia and avoid American detection. WikiLeaks also submitted asylum requests to multiple countries on Snowden’s behalf.

Since 2013, Snowden has been loosely associated with WikiLeaks at other times. At various points, Snowden has weighed in on the accuracy of documents leaked by the organization. For example, in March 2017, Snowden publicly said that he believed the documents related to CIA hacking techniques released by WikiLeaks were true.

But, Snowden has also been critical of WikiLeaks. In July 2016, Snowden criticized WikiLeaks for not curating the information it released, instead just indiscriminately posting documents related to the U.S. election. In response, WikiLeaks accused Snowden of trying to curry favor with the then-front-runner in the election, Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks Controversy and Criticisms

There are lots of criticisms consistently levied against WikiLeaks and the people associated with it. Here are some of the most prevalent:

Julian Assange’s Legal Troubles

Julian Assange has spent the last five years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange was accused of sexual assault by two women in Stockholm, Sweden in 2010. Assange claims that the sexual encounters with the two women were both consensual and that they were only accusing him of assault because of political reasons. In 2012, Assange sought asylum from Ecuador and was granted the ability to stay in the country’s embassy in London. While Sweden recently announced that it was no longer seeking his arrest, he still isn’t likely to leave the embassy any time soon. U.K. officials have said they can arrest him on other charges, like jumping bail. And if he’s extradited to the United States, he could be subject to a variety of charges related to WikiLeaks. If he is ever extradited to the U.S. for charges related to release of documents stolen by Chelsea Manning, he could be in serious trouble.

Redactions Wanted

WikiLeaks’ “leak all for transparency’s sake” approach to releasing information has garnered it some criticism. In July 2016, WikiLeaks claimed to publish a number of documents related to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The so-called “Erdogan emails” didn’t really appear to contain any political bombshells, but did include links to databases containing the information of Turkish citizens. One database had the personal information of almost every woman in the country. The info included things like addresses, cell phone numbers, and political information. Essentially, WikiLeaks doxxed almost half the country. While the files were eventually taken down, WikiLeaks was criticized for going beyond transparency to potentially harming private individuals.

2016 Election Hacks

WikiLeaks has recently been criticized for its role leaking documents pertaining to the 2016 election. WikiLeaks leaked DNC emails that reflected negatively on Hillary Clinton’s presidency campaign. Charlie Savage of the New York Times argued that Assange specifically timed the release of the DNC emails to come out at the most politically damaging time for Clinton, a claim bolstered by Assange’s own admission that he saw Clinton as a “personal foe.” In addition to releasing emails from the DNC, Wikileaks also published a trove of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal email account. Those were also released in batches in a way that kept much of the information in the news as the campaign progressed. WikiLeaks has even been accused of colluding with Russia’s attempts to propel now-President Donald Trump to the presidency. The U.S. intelligence community issued a report that attributed the DNC hack to Russian intelligence services, which caused many to question the extent to which WikiLeaks is associated with the Russian government. WikiLeaks has refused to divulge the source of the documents and has so far denied any connection with Russia.

Conclusion

As a political topic, WikiLeaks is no doubt controversial. In the era of fake news, and distrust in the media and government institutions, WikiLeaks has often garnered credit for being willing to provide ordinary citizens with primary sources. On the other hand, WikiLeaks’ mystique, founder’s legal issues, and accusations of bias and irresponsible dissemination of information has led to plenty of criticism. In fact, in the last year, plenty of think pieces have been written, accusing WikiLeaks of “losing its friends” and “losing the moral high ground.” But given the space it has carved out as a repository for leaked information, and the relative fame of some of the people associated with it, including Julian Assange, it’s unlikely to disappear from our radars anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is WikiLeaks and Who is Julian Assange? appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News retracted a story from its website Tuesday afternoon, after a week of conspiracy theory peddling from one of its most popular television hosts, Sean Hannity. The story was about Seth Rich, the 27-year-old DNC staffer who was murdered last July while walking to his home in D.C. The story was also popular on a number of websites, including alt-right Breitbart and the far-right Drudge Report.

Quoting Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was supposedly looking into the case on behalf of the Rich family, the story claimed that Rich leaked emails and other documents from DNC staffers and Hillary Clinton to WikiLeaks. That would mean the information did not come from Russian operatives, as both the CIA and the FBI have concluded. Fox issued the following statement on its retraction of the story:

On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.

Early last week, Wheeler sparked the tinder that would set the “alt-right” media–and Hannity–aflame: he told Fox 5 D.C. he had sources at the FBI that said Rich had released a trove of emails and attachments to WikiLeaks. Rich was assassinated, according to the unfounded conspiracy, as part of an attempt to spread rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to harm the Clinton campaign by releasing thousands of embarrassing emails.

The FBI, along with the Senate and House intelligence committees, are currently investigating communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Hours after Wheeler’s report, he told CNN that his “information” was in fact “from the reporter at Fox News,” not based on hard evidence or any of his own original findings or sources, including at the FBI. Wheeler later told Fox 5 the false report was due to “miscommunication.”

But that has not stopped Hannity and others on Twitter from fanning the flames:

Congress, investigate Seth Rich Murder! @JulianAssange made comments u need to listen to! If Seth was wiki source, no Trump/Russia collusion https://t.co/QPHZwypU34

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017

 On Sunday’s “Fox and Friends,” Newt Gingrich also parroted Wheeler’s false report, saying: “We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments.”

Hannity and others have been able to latch on to Wheeler’s account, and earlier conspiracies swirling around Rich’s murder, because of the investigation’s lack of progress–the case remains unsolved. The investigation is ongoing; D.C. Metropolitan Police have some evidence that the murder was a botched robbery.

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast reported earlier this week that staff members and reporters at Fox News found Hannity’s insistence that this story has merit to be “embarrassing” and “gross.” Wheeler could find himself in court because of his unfounded claims. Rich’s family already sent a “cease-and-desist” letter to Wheeler through their lawyer, Joseph Ingrisano.

“Your improper and unauthorized statements, many of which are false and have no basis in fact, have also injured the memory and reputation of Seth Rich and have defamed and injured the reputation of the members of the family,” Ingrisano wrote.

Wheeler told the Chicago Tribune that he is “exploring all of my legal options and I sincerely hope that one day we find the person who took Seth’s life.”

In a Washington Post op-ed, Mary and Joel Rich, Seth’s parents, pleaded with those who continue to promulgate the falsehoods “to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.” They added: “With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Retracts Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks unleashed its latest trove of secrets: thousands of documents seemingly detailing the espionage techniques the Central Intelligence Agency has developed in recent years. Vault 7–the title WikiLeaks has given its latest series of potentially damaging info dumps–is the “largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency,” according to the anti-secrecy outfit. Here is what you need to know.

What the Leaks Reveal

Basically, the documents–nearly 9,000 in total–show that the CIA is capable of compromising smartphones, messaging systems, and televisions, and using them as modes of surveillance. Anything that connects through the internet, the CIA can hijack as a listening or viewing portal. Produced by the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence from 2013 to 2016, the documents are highly technical, and clearly meant for in-house viewing only. The documents, which have not been verified by the agency, come from an unidentified source.

Some of the programs detailed in the documents have colorful names: Wrecking Crew, CrunchyLimeSkies, ElderPiggy, AngerQuake, and McNugget to name a few. One program, called Weeping Angel, uses Samsung televisions that have internet capabilities and, according to a WikiLeaks description of the program, “operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server.”

It’s unclear where these documents came from. Some analysts say Russia, which provided WikiLeaks with Democratic operatives’ emails it hacked before the presidential election, could be responsible. While the CIA does not appear to penetrate already-encrypted messages, it is able to intercept messages before the content is encrypted. Encrypted messaging apps–Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram–had also been cracked by the agency.

CIA and NSA: How Are They Different?

There are a number of differences between the National Security Agency’s espionage tools–revealed in 2013 in a WikiLeak dump provided by Edward Snowden–and the CIA’s abilities. For one (and this might save the agency from the same blowback the NSA experienced) there is no evidence that the CIA has spied on Americans. There is also no evidence the CIA, unlike the NSA, has engaged in a massive data collection effort of U.S. citizens.

Instead, the picture the documents paint is one of targeted espionage, focused on foreign actors. Another key distinction: the NSA poked holes that weren’t there to peer through; the CIA uses existing holes, or vulnerabilities in an app or device for surveillance purposes. But it does not appear the agency alerts companies of the vulnerabilities it unearths.

Despite the differences between the NSA’s program and CIA’s, Snowden called the documents “a big deal.” Snowden, who has been holed up in Russia, a country that routinely interferes in the democratic processes of sovereign nations, tweeted:

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

On Tuesday’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, defended the CIA’s tactics. Hayden said the agency does not spy on Americans, but “there are people out there that you want us to spy on.” He added: “You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the WikiLeaks CIA Document Dump appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump may have dismissed the CIA report that Russia’s hacking was intended to aid his election efforts, but a bipartisan cohort of  politicians banded together to condemn the Kremlin’s actions over the weekend. Many have also called for a “bipartisan investigation” into the matter. Four senators–two from each party–released a joint statement on Sunday in response to the CIA’s conclusion that the hacks were pointedly aimed at putting Trump in the White House. 

“We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security,” said the statement from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI).

The senators said that the CIA’s report “should alarm every American,” adding that the hacks “cut to the heart of our free society.” McCain and Schumer appeared on “CBS This Morning” on Monday, reiterating their concern over the hacks. Contradicting Trump’s Twitter flurry denying the CIA’s report, McCain said: “there is no doubt about the hacking. Let’s establish that.”

Trump continued his Twitter tirade on Monday morning:

Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

He continued:

Unless you catch “hackers” in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn’t this brought up before election?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

Russia’s hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s email servers, and its assist to Wikileaks, which in turn unleashed the damaging emails, has been on the CIA’s radar since at least July. But last week, the agency concluded that the Russians also hacked into the Republican National Committee’s servers, but held back on releasing what they had dug up. Based on a new analysis of previously known, and largely circumstantial evidence, the CIA concluded Russia intended to help Trump get elected over Hillary Clinton.

Trump and Clinton presented Russia with two very different futures, depending on which candidate U.S. voters elected into office. As secretary of state, Clinton clashed with Russian President Vladimir Putin several times. For instance, he blamed her for instigating anti-Putin protests in Moscow in 2011. Trump on the other hand, has shown nothing but admiration for Putin on the campaign trail. Trump has praised Putin as “a strong leader,” and has questioned the effectiveness of NATO, a key check against Russian aggression in Baltic states in Europe.

While some top-ranking Republicans have spoken out against the Russians, others have remained largely silent. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a statement on Sunday, saying “foreign intervention in our elections is unacceptable” but also added that he “rejects any politicization of intelligence matters” and did not call for a deeper probe into the matter. But for McCain, Schumer, Graham, and Reed, Russia’s meddling “cannot become a partisan issue.” They said in their statement: “The stakes are too high for our country.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bipartisan Group of Politicians Express Outrage Over Russian Hacking appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, Monday! If you’re on the East Coast like me it’s foggy and bleak out there, and the news about the Russian hackers is enough to make anyone want to crawl back into bed. But our last story for today is hopefully enough to cheer you up, so read on and have a good start to your week! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Doesn’t Believe that Russia Tried to Influence the Election

On Saturday, the CIA concluded that many Democrats’ suspicions were true: Russian authorities did attempt to influence the U.S. election. More specifically, they wanted to help Donald Trump win. Several U.S. intelligence agencies found that the Kremlin provided Wikileaks with thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And when Wikileaks published them online, the negative media attention helped propel Trump to victory.

Don’t let Trumps twitter rants distract from the real news: THE RUSSIANS INTERVENED IN OUR ELECTION TO HELP TRUMP WIN. #russianhacking

— Laura Benanti (@LauraBenanti) December 10, 2016

But on Sunday, Trump said that he simply didn’t believe the news and that the Democrats are just angry because he won. His team also called his victory “one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history,” when in fact, it was one of the closest elections ever.

Also on Sunday, Trump said he would not be getting the daily intelligence briefing that most presidents receive just, you know, to keep track of the world. But Trump doesn’t love the briefings–in fact, he thinks they’re too repetitive. “You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years,” he said.

Even some Republicans are shocked:

So wait…the CIA says Russia messed with our election to help Trump win and Trump attacks…the CIA?

Not Russia? He goes after the CIA?

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) December 10, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Wikileaks dumped a new batch of emails on Wednesday that provide a peek into the behind-the-scenes correspondence between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the State Department as The New York Times prepared to break the story on Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state. They also show the initial scramble Clinton’s team went through as the story was about to hit the media. The emails come from the same trove belonging to Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta that Wikileaks has been steadily leaking on a daily basis. Russia is widely believed to be behind the hacks.

In an email dated March 1, 2015, a State Department press aide, Lauren Hickey, sent the following message to a department contact (Heather Samuelson, a former Clinton aide who has come under fire) and group of Clinton’s aides: “Hi guys – Jen just cleared. She made the highlighted change — just rephrased a line about NARA updates state is undertaking. Yes on your point re records – done below. And yes will let you know — should be in the new few minutes,” Hickey wrote, referencing Clinton’s Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri.

State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the leaked emails on Wednesday, but said the effort to release accurate information to the media has “at times required communicating with her representatives to ensure accuracy.”

In another email thread, dated March 17, Clinton aides discussed how best to respond to questions sent over by New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt. “Jen when we talked over the weekend you noted that it was fairly irresponsible for them to cherry pick leaked emails and write it up as representative,” wrote campaign aide Nick Merrill, who also works in the Office of Strategic Communications at the State Department. He added that some of Schmidt’s questions were “a little ridiculous to say the least.”

The same email chain shows the initial defensive stance the Clinton team took. Aide Philippe Reines wrote: “There’s a lot to respond to here, but first and foremost the premise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with anyone having personal email addresses or her emailing someone’s private account or vice versa. Maybe she was wishing (longtime aide) Jake (Sullivan) a happy birthday. Or I was sending her a note about her mom. … We’re allowed to have personal lives.”

Palmieri, meanwhile, foreshadowing the pall this would cast over Clinton’s campaign for months to come, wrote: “Strikes me as a big problem that the NYT is having selected emails leaked to them and I think we should do a call to discuss the proper way to handle.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Leaked Emails Show Communication Between State Department and Clinton Aides appeared first on Law Street.

Iceland’s election was on Saturday, and while certain mainstay parties were represented on the ballot, an unexpected challenger also had a place there: the Pirate Party, an anti-establishment party that garnered roughly 15 percent of Iceland’s support.

The Pirate Party is just one of the many populist parties that have emerged in Europe since the global financial crisis, but it does not identify as right or left wing, choosing instead to label itself an anti-establishment movement that will attempt to combine the best of both parties. The party operates on a platform of direct democracy, net neutrality, and civil rights, and is an offshoot of the Pirate movement founded in Sweden a decade ago. However, while the Swedish party was primarily preoccupied with copyright law, the Icelandic version embraces a much broader swath of issues and has gained more traction, thanks in part to the release of the Panama Papers.

After the Panama Papers revealed that Iceland’s former Prime Minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, and his wife held funds in offshore accounts in the British Virgin Islands, the Pirate Party swooped as the voice of protest, organizing massive protests across the country. Freedom of information and the exposure of corrupt practices is a central theme of the Pirate Party’s agenda: Birgitta Jonsdottir, the leader of the party, is a poet who formerly provided legal assistance to WikiLeaks. Before the Panama Papers, the Pirate Party would never have been in the position it holds now, attracting international attention. Jonsdottir herself has expressed surprise during multiple interviews at how successful the party has become.

The Pirate Party did not win a seat at the table this weekend, largely because of concerns about the profound economic effects for international investors had the party won. However,  there could also be a shift in the political status quo now that the Party has stepped toward legitimacy by at points polling over 20 percent. The Pirate Party has ruled out forming a coalition with the current parties in power if it ever is elected, arguing that it doesn’t want its vote to be influenced or absorbed by the corruption of “the Octopus“–the wealthy families that Jonsdottir argues control the country. The party may not ever succeed in creating a more transparent and equitable democracy (and frankly, the party’s plan of action is more optimistic than realistic) but they will have perhaps opened the door for other outsider parties, not only in Iceland, but across all small European nations.

In the United States, where we have massive voting blocs aligned to our traditional two parties, third party candidates have rarely won elections, yet in Iceland, with a total population of only approximately 332,500, a smaller number of voters can have a greater impact on the election–which means the Pirate Party could set a new precedent for dozens of small-scale movements that want to transition into the formal government. The Pirate Party’s steps toward legitimacy may not impact U.S. elections but it can have an impact on countries with small, young populations–voters who are online, connecting with political movements through social media, and who are frustrated with the traditional party dichotomy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Election No One Has Noticed: Iceland’s Pirate Party appeared first on Law Street.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange revealed in early October that he will publish a huge tranche of one million leaked documents before the U.S. presidential election–and over the last few weeks these revelations have caused a stir in American politics.

Julian Assange’s whistleblower platform WikiLeaks has published about 20,000 pages of emails illegally stolen from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair. Podesta, a longtime Clinton hand and Democratic party operative, was President Obama’s top political adviser before becoming chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign in February 2015.

The hacked emails provide an unprecedented glimpse into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign and its allies.

The U.S. government has said there is mounting evidence to suggest that Russia was responsible for supplying WikiLeaks with the hacked emails.

Clinton condemned the email hack during the third and final presidential debate. Moderator Chris Wallace, of Fox News, pressed the Democratic nominee to clarify her opinion on “open borders.” While Clinton rejected that she ever supported “open borders,” Wallace pointed to a $25,000 speech to a Brazilian bank, recently exposed by WikiLeaks, in which Clinton said that her “dream is a hemispheric common market, and open trade and open borders.”

“You are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. What’s really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russians have engaged in espionage against Americans,” Clinton said. “They have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the internet.”

Clinton accused the highest levels of the Russian government and Putin himself for the cyberattacks on the U.S. The Democratic nominee called on Donald Trump to reject Russian espionage against Americans.

The Republican nominee criticized Clinton for pivoting the conversation about immigration to Putin. Trump offered his insights on the Russian leader, saying:

I don’t know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russian and the US get along well and went after ISIS that would be good.

When asked whether he condemned Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. elections, he said: “Of course I condemn, be it Russia or anybody else.”

The emails have raised fears for both political parties. Florida Senator Marco Rubio warned GOP officials earlier this week to stay quiet about the hacks.

“As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process, and I will not indulge it,” Rubio said. “Further, I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats. Tomorrow it could be us.”

The 2016 presidential election continues to remain an unpredictable cycle marked by the leaks of emails, voice recordings, tax returns and classified information.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Political Fears Surrounding WikiLeaks: What You Should Know appeared first on Law Street.

Tweets sent out by WikiLeaks on Sunday afternoon had Julian Assange fans really concerned. The messages seemed like a “dead man’s switch”–which are encrypted messages containing highly classified material that become unveiled in case someone dies. This is what the messages looked like:

pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 2: Ecuador
eae5c9b064ed649ba468f0800abf8b56ae5cfe355b93b1ce90a1b92a48a9ab72

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

pre-commitment 3: UK FCO f33a6de5c627e3270ed3e02f62cd0c857467a780cf6123d2172d80d02a072f74

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 16, 2016

These messages had Twitter users speculating that Assange was, in fact, dead.

There were also theories about what the messages actually meant. One possibility is that John Kerry is next to be targeted by a big release of classified information, considering recent WikiLeaks publications have focused on the Democratic Party specifically. According to former Trump adviser Roger Stone, Kerry has previously threatened the Ecuadorian government.

John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with “grave consequences for Equador” if Assange is not silenced @StoneColdTruth

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 17, 2016

Another interesting and bizarre aspect to the story is that actress Pamela Anderson unexpectedly and uninvited dropped by the embassy on Saturday to share a vegan lunch with Assange. Some fans even speculated that she was the one who had killed him, maybe hired by the American government, by bringing him a poisoned sandwich…but that obviously seems incredibly far-fetched.

@alburyj GET ASSANGE OUT OF THERE AND INTO HIDING. How do we know that Pamela Anderson isn’t working 4 someone to set up him up?

— Rosa Marzullo (@niftyrosa1) October 17, 2016

Pamela said she is an Assange supporter and that she is worried about his health. She wanted to bring him “a nice vegan lunch and some vegan snacks.” But maybe he would have preferred some hearty meat. “He said I tortured him with bringing him vegan food,” she said jokingly.

Finding out that Pamela Anderson & Julian Assange are friends is like watching an unlikely animal friendship video https://t.co/JnTTgrYCGg

— Gabriella Paiella (@GMPaiella) October 17, 2016

By Monday, everything pointed to Assange still being alive and well. Gizmodo speculated that “pre-commitment” in this case stands for a cryptographic plan to prevent classified and yet unreleased material from being tampered with.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account was active on Monday, also a good sign. In the early morning, it posted a tweet saying “a state party” had intentionally cut off Julian Assange’s internet connection. The message went on to say that the organization had “activated the appropriate contingency plans.”

Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

On Saturday, WikiLeaks released the alleged full transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to financial firm Goldman Sachs. Many people thought the Monday cutoff of Assange’s internet was revenge for messing with Clinton.

We and many others believe Julian Assange’s internet was cut for criticizing Hillary Clinton. #FreeJulian

— Anonymous (@LatestAnonNews) October 17, 2016

Assange has been in hiding at Ecuador’s embassy in London for the last four years, trying to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape case, which could lead to deportation to the U.S., where he fears he would be charged with espionage. The alleged internet cutoff comes after recent news that Sweden is not dropping the charges against him, and a press conference he held via video link on October 4. In that speech he promised 10 weeks of new releases of classified material, in celebration of Wikileak’s 10-year anniversary.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Going on With Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange’s internet link cut off by “state actor”

Recent reports tell us that Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange’s access to the internet has been severed. Assange has been in exile for almost four years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The Associated Press concludes that an “unidentified state actor” has cut off his internet access and not much information about the event can be obtained at the moment. Many hack-savvy Redditors have pointed to some legitimate clues as to what could be going on. Others seem to be coming to their own conclusions.

The fact that #julianasange has been cut off the Internet for #wikileaks is proof that we need to vote for TRUMP!!!!! #noHillary #trumptrain

— cbreezy (@carriebeez1) October 17, 2016

So John Kerry working so hard to stop #julianasange makes u wonder what’s coming that they are so scared of to come out ?

— KamieK #TOLG (@01Kamie) October 17, 2016

Regardless of what people might think of Assange, what he’s been doing is pretty risky, and that makes him an important political character.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Women For Trump?

After Trump’s horrible comments about sexual assault, women supporting Trump are in the limelight and it’s confusing a lot of people.

Take a look:

A lot of us are like: why, just why? Hillary becoming president is one of the best things that can happen for the majority of American women, historically speaking, and they just want to vote for Trump?

It’s their vote, I guess, but WTF.

WE ALL STAND BY TRUMP. WOMEN FOR TRUMP. HE’S OUR ONLY SAVIOR. #maga #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 #Trump @Cher pic.twitter.com/vOcgXMr0FB

— Ingrid Mueller1 (@_Women4Trump) October 9, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A Swedish court decided on Friday that the arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange still stands. He was accused of rape during a visit to Sweden back in 2010 and remains in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange denies the rape allegation and has refused to leave the embassy out of fear that he will be extradited to the United States where he could face espionage charges for documents leaked by his website.

Originally from Australia, Julian Assange visited Sweden in the summer of 2010 to give a lecture. He spent time with two Swedish women and over the course of a couple days he spent the night with each of them. Opinions diverge over what happened next. According to the women, what started out as consensual sex ended up being non-consensual. But Assange denies any wrongdoing and claimed he was shocked to hear the accusations.

Some people believe the women are part of a bigger political scheme to have Assange arrested. International media has criticized the strict Swedish rape laws, calling the country a “feminist dystopia” for how easy it is to be convicted while mocking the women for being upset that Assange dated more than one person at the same time. But the women’s testimonies, which were obtained by the Guardian, indicate that the case is more complicated than that. Assange allegedly attempted to have sex with both women without a condom, and although he eventually did use one, one of the women alleges that he intentionally ripped it before they had sex. The other woman claims she woke up and realized he was having unprotected sex with her, against her will. According to the Associated Press, allegations of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion were dropped due to the statute of limitations in Sweden, but the rape charge will remain until 2020.

In response to the ruling, Assange’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson told the Associated Press, “We are naturally disappointed that Swedish courts yet again choose to ignore Julian Assange’s difficult life situation. They ignore the risk that he will be extradited to the United States.”

Swedish prosecutors said they have not been in contact with the United States about Assange’s case, and if a third country asks to have Assange extradited it would need permission from Britain. Prosecutors are trying to move forward on the case by interrogating Assange at the embassy with the help of an Ecuadorean official who will question him on October 17.

Yesterday, the Wikileaks Twitter account said that Assange would turn himself into the United States if authorities release Chelsea Manning.

If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US prison in exchange — despite its clear unlawfulness https://t.co/MZU30S3Eia

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 15, 2016

Manning is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence for leaking classified materials. She ended her hunger strike earlier this week after the U.S. Army decided to allow her to undergo gender transition surgery.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Swedish Court: Detention Order for Julian Assange Stands appeared first on Law Street.

Chelsea Manning, the transgender whistleblower imprisoned for leaking classified government documents to Wikileaks, ended her hunger strike on Tuesday after the U.S. Army agreed to allow her to undergo gender transition surgery to treat her gender dysphoria.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Manning, who is a transgender woman, began the hunger strike on September 9 to demand the “medically necessary and recommended treatment” for her disorder.

“This is a monumental day for Chelsea, who can now enjoy some peace knowing that critically needed medical care is forthcoming,” said ACLU attorney Chase Strangio. “This medical care is absolutely vital for Chelsea as it is for so many transgender people–in and out of prison–who are systemically denied treatment solely because they are transgender.”

The former U.S. Army soldier is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence for espionage at Fort Leavenworth, an all-male Army prison in Kansas, after providing hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Her lawyers claim that while she’s been at Fort Leavenworth, army officials have subjected Manning to long stretches of solitary confinement and forced her to cut her hair to “male hair length standards”–which does not reflect her gender identity. Manning claims that the lack of care for her disorder contributed to her suicide attempt in July.

In 2014, Manning filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense so she could grow her hair out, use cosmetics, and receive hormone treatment to in order to express her female gender. The Army eventually agreed to allow her to receive hormone therapy, but it refused to allow her to groom as a woman.

In April 2016, Manning’s psychologist recommended she undergo gender transition surgery as part of her treatment. The Army’s decision to proceed with Manning’s treatment will make her the first transgender inmate to undergo the surgery while in prison.

Manning gave the following statement to the ACLU:

I am unendingly relieved that the military is finally doing the right thing. I applaud them for that. This is all that I wanted–for them to let me be me. But it is hard not to wonder why it has taken so long. Also, why were such drastic measures needed? The surgery was recommended in April 2016. The recommendations for my hair length were back in 2014. In any case, I hope this sets a precedent for the thousands of trans people behind me hoping they will be given the treatment they need.

After news broke of the Army’s decision, social media critics came out in droves to condemn the use of  taxpayers’ money on the surgery.

Why exactly are tax payers footing the bill for Chelsea Manning’s surgery and temper tantrum?

— Tawnie (@Tawnie) September 14, 2016

How is it that “Chelsea Manning” gets a gender-change operation on the tax-payers dime? How is that appropriate use of tax-dollars?

— Greg Granger (@BattleCoachella) September 14, 2016

The Daily Beast, however, argues that if you’re ok with prisoners receiving antidepressants, you shouldn’t get worked up over Manning’s medical treatment. Both hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery can be deemed medically necessary to treat individuals with gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder.

“Thankfully the government has recognized its constitutional obligation to provide Chelsea with the medical care that she needs and we hope that they will act without delay to ensure that her suffering does not needlessly continue,” said the ACLU.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chelsea Manning Ends Hunger Strike to Receive Gender Transition Surgery appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jessica Alba Thinks Honest Company Lawsuits are NBD

Jessica Alba’s Honest Company, which produces home and personal care items like detergent and soap has been under fire for…well, for being not that honest. But during an interview with the “Today” show yesterday, Alba explained she’s not too worried about the suits, saying:

If an organization wants to bring awareness to their cause, I’m an easy target and our brand is an easy target obviously, because I get a different kind of attention than other brands would. We stand by our ingredients, the effectiveness of the products and we’re pretty optimistic that we’re going to win every case.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 26, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Is WikiLeaks sacrificing the personal privacy of innocent people in its mission for transparency? On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that the organization’s decision to publish the Saudi Cables last year–in which about a half-million documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry were made public–exposed the sensitive personal information of hundreds of ordinary citizens. Among those exposed are rape victims, the mentally ill, and LGBT individuals who were essentially “outed” by the leaks.

The cables were published last year, but the AP’s report sheds some light on how WikiLeaks often goes beyond its stated mission, harming the privacy of innocent individuals who may themselves be left vulnerable by leaked documents. The organization claims that the transparency it brings about “creates a better society for all people,” but some of the information exposed is not just embarrassing for the citizens involved–it could even put them in danger.

For example, the AP notes that the leaks include the name of a gay Saudi citizen who was arrested for homosexuality. This “outing” could have profound consequences for the individual, considering that the illegality of being gay in the Kingdom “can lead to social ostracism, a prison sentence, or even death.”

Wikileaks fired back on Twitter, denying that it leaked anything that the government did not already know and alleging that the AP was simply bringing back an old story to stir up controversy in an election year:

No, WikiLeaks did not disclose “gays” to the Saudi govt. Data is from govt & not leaked by us. Story from 2015. Re-run now due to election.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 2016

The organization also tweeted about the importance of the Saudi cables, noting that it exposed important information about the Kingdom that was not being covered by the media:

WikiLeaks’ #Saudi Cables reveal the Kingdom’s foreign media manipulation strategies https://t.co/e3cx2LIJPA pic.twitter.com/JOUlml7ous

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 2016

This isn’t the first time that the site has exposed personal information. Last month, when the organization leaked thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee, it included the credit card and social security numbers of a few dozen people, the report notes.

Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, has attempted to be a strong advocate for privacy in the past, penning a New York Times op-ed on the necessity of protecting privacy in a “surveillance society.” However, while he criticizes modern-day companies and the government for eroding the privacy of individuals, his organization has clearly done the same by leaking Saudi citizens’ personal information.

There is no evidence that the exposure of the information was intentional, but it brings to light some interesting dilemmas facing the organization and its mission: is there a way to be completely transparent without making innocent individuals vulnerable? And how much is too much when it comes to leaking sensitive information? The AP report just reinforces the ethical and moral issues surrounding WikiLeaks, resurfacing debates that have been around since the site launched and will undoubtedly continue as the site leaks additional information.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Did WikiLeaks Expose the Private Information of Innocent Saudi Citizens? appeared first on Law Street.

Wikileaks Is Probably Publishing Your Private Data Right Now

Wikileaks is often applauded for dumping mass data files exposing the secrets of the Democratic Party and the NSA. But now its contributors may have gone too far. Wikileaks has recently been accused of disclosing identifying information on the health and other topics of private citizens. The Huffington Post wrote a scathing article condemning Wikileaks for exposing the lives of sexual assault victims and the sexual orientation of people who otherwise would like that to be kept a secret.  Woah, woah, woah. Now that’s going too far right? Could there be something wrong with a world that knows (or doesn’t know) everything?

Wikileaks has been quick to defend itself:

Reports that WikiLeaks published data on “Turkish women” are entirely false. US election sees media standards decay. https://t.co/odmpxNB0Jp

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Wikileaks Strikes Again With New DNC Leak

Here we go again! Wikileaks, the ever controversial leaking organization, released a series of voicemails from the recent Democratic National Committee hack showing some donors asking party officials for favors. One of the voicemails, highlighted by CNN, has a woman addressing the DNC’s financial director:

I’m furious about what you are doing for Bernie Sanders, he’s getting way too much influence. I’m on a fixed income, I spent over $300, donated to Hillary, what I see is the DNC bending over backwards for Bernie and Bernie is the worst person in the world to even be running in the Democratic Party, because he’s not a Democrat.

Other voicemails have callers, some of them ambassadors and big time donors trying to get perks or special treatment out of the DNC. Of course, these voicemails are seemingly harmless. No one can really grasp any under-the-table wrongdoing from this aspect of the leak. It’s just one piece to a very large puzzle.

Now investigators are asking whether Wikileaks has a hand in strategically leaking this information to try and manipulate the elections.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last year, the United Nations launched a working group to discuss the “arbitrary detention” of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange has been living in London’s Ecuadorian embassy since 2012, after his 2010 arrest in London, where he was brought in on charges regarding sexual assault and molestation in Sweden.

Both of the women who reported these assaults have remained anonymous in the press, but police have revealed that both incidents took place in August 2010. One of the charges was dropped in 2015, but the other still stands today. In a controversial move that alienated him from several political allies, the Ecuadorian ambassador granted Assange political asylum on the grounds that Ecuador has historically protected those who are vulnerable. Assange was concerned that if he was deported to Sweden, he might then be deported to the United States, where his involvement with Wikileaks could lead to him being tried for treason–and, according to Assange and his supporters, could face the death penalty. In July 2015, Assange requested asylum in France but his request was denied by Francois Hollande. For a series of several months, British police forces did guard the Ecuadorian embassy but they never made overt threats or attempts to forcibly remove Assange from his place of refuge.

The Guardian ran a poll this week to gauge popular opinion on the United Nation’s ruling that Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained–66 percent of Britons polled felt that the UN had made the wrong call. British politicians also fell into this camp–Prime Minister David Cameron said that the only person detaining Assange was “himself” and Secretary of State Philip Hammond rejected the UN decision via Twitter.

The UN may have handed down a ruling from on high, but British law enforcement still has agency over how to proceed with Assange. Assange has called the UN’s decision a victory that is legally binding, but the overwhelmingly negative response from British officials has led Assange to remain within the Ecuadorian embassy for the time being.  Swedish officials have supported the British decision to reject the UN ruling, leaving Assange essentially in the exact same position he was before the UN working group was formed. The UN has claimed that he should be allowed to walk free of the embassy and is even entitled to compensation but it did not specify how and when the UK and Sweden should go about dropping the charges against him and ensuring his reintegration into society.

The UN has effectively asked two governments to abandon a sexual assault case for no better reason than that the defendant is living a life of relative discomfort. Neither of these governments have tortured or committed any form of violence against Assange, they simply want to bring him in for questioning and put him on trial if necessary. Assange’s ruling should not be considered a landmark case because it is not one that will apply to any other situation. If any other criminal sought refuge within an embassy for several years, he would still be asked to undergo questioning and trial after leaving his place of asylum. Assange may have the satisfaction of a UN stamp of approval but the ruling likely has no leg to stand on in a legal setting.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Julian Assange’s Partial Victory: A UN Declaration with No Teeth appeared first on Law Street.

The American Bill of Rights includes some fundamental freedoms to which we all, as American citizens, are entitled. One of them is called “Freedom of the Press.” It’s a freedom we may take for granted; it’s easy to assume that a nation whose President is often dubbed “the leader of the free world” also has the freest press; however, this year the United States ranked #49 out of 180 nations on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index 2015.

Reporters Without Borders explains its goal as follows:

The aim of the index is to measure freedom of information in 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news media and netizens (Internet citizens) enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It should not be seen as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.

The top ten on the list were Finland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, Canada, Jamaica, and Estonia. The lowest ten were Eritrea, North Korea, Turkemenistan, Syria, China, Vietnam, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, and Laos.

The rankings include both quantitative and qualitative data. In order to compile the list, Reporters Without Borders “scores” nations based on seven criteria categories:

• Pluralism: Are different opinions present in the media?
• Media Independence: Does the media function independently of other spheres of influence?
• Environment and Self-Censorship: What sort of journalistic environment is there in the nation?
• Legislative Framework: What sorts of laws govern the news?
• Transparency: How transparent are the institutions that produce the news?
• Infrastructure: How strong are the institutions that produce the news and what support do they have?
• Abuse: What is the violence and harassment toward those in the media like?

This format allows Reporters Without Borders to create a “score” for each nation; the lower the better. A score of 0-15 points shows a “Good Situation;” 15.01-25 points is a “Satisfactory Situation;” 25.01-35 points indicates “Noticeable Problems;” 35.01-55 points is a “Difficult Situation;” and 55.01-100 points is a “Very Serious Situation.” The United States scored a 24.41, so barely in the “Satisfactory Situation” category.

The United States’ place on the list at 49 is tied for the lowest its ever been–it was also 49 in 2007. Last year, the U.S. was three places higher. Reporters Without Borders explained the drop, stating:

In the Americas, the United States (49th, down three places) continues its decline. In 2014, the New York Times journalist James Risen came under government pressure to reveal his sources. Although the Obama administration backed away in that case, it continues its war on information in others, such as WikiLeaks.

Reporters Without Borders also cited the American treatment of Edward Snowden as another reason for the U.S.’s slip down the list. In addition, the treatment of the press in hostile situations, such as the environment in Ferguson, Missouri after the shooting of Michael Brown, was a reason for concern.

The United States’ commitment to Freedom of the Press doesn’t appear to go as far as it could. It’s concerning–hopefully some positive changes will be made in the New Year and we’ll move further up the list when the next rankings are released.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drops to 49th Place For Global Freedom of the Press appeared first on Law Street.

Bitcoin first started making headlines in 2009 and has continued to grow into one of the world’s most well-recognized, thorough, and usable cryptocurrencies. But with multiple legal controversies and the general public’s skepticism when it comes to something as new as “cryptocurrency,” it’s difficult to tell whether Bitcoin has much of a future. Read on to learn more about the currency and its future.

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoins are widely known as a digital or cryptocurrency. Unlike conventional currencies that are regulated by central authorities in their respective regions (such as the Federal Reserve Bank for the United States Dollar), Bitcoin is border-less and managed by a cryptographically-secured peer-to-peer network. The demand for Bitcoins determines their value in the market, and their supply is determined by complex mathematical algorithms developed by the founder–a person who goes by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. This supply generation process is called Bitcoin mining. So, Bitcoins are usually created by being “mined” by computers solving a complex string of processing problems, although one can now purchase existing Bitcoins.

Only fifty were created at the time of the cryptocurrency’s genesis and the maximum number of coins that can be issued is locked at 21 million. Just like the lowest value that the United States dollar can be divided into is one-cent pennies, a Bitcoin can at most be divided into eight decimal places. It gained prominence in April 2013 when its value spiked to $266 US Dollars compared to only $22 earlier that  same year. More than 10 million coins had been issued at that point at a total market value of $2 billion.

Courtesy of Idology.com.

Who likes Bitcoins?

Proponents of the cryptocurrency appreciate its purity in terms of supply and demand without any governmental interference. Bitcoins mitigate privacy concerns because they eliminate the need to enter information such as name and address for online transactions. For many tech aficionados, the cryptocurrency provides the thrill of following a new trend in the virtual world. Bitcoins are now being accepted by many platforms like WikiLeaks, restaurants, mobile payment applications, and retail apps that have partnered with major consumer brands like GAP and Sephora.

A federal district court recently ruled that Bitcoin is indeed a currency, given that it can be either used to purchase goods and services directly, or to purchase currency that can in turn be used to purchase goods and services. According to a study conducted by the European Central Bank, Bitcoins do not pose a risk to price instability given that their supply is capped at 21 million coins, and will not negatively affect  the economy as long as the government monitors it to ensure that its not being used for fraudulent purposes.

Who doesn’t like Bitcoins?

Opponents worry that the unregulated and anonymous nature of cryptocurrency lends itself to be used for illegal trade, tax evasion, money laundering, and investment frauds like Ponzi schemes. Dread Pirate Roberts, the owner of Silk Road, an online drug market in the deep web that is now shutdown, blatantly admitted that Bitcoin helped him win the war of drugs against the state.

Opponents also criticize Bitcoin’s algorithmic design for specifically inducing rise and fall in its value. But unlike traditional currencies, Bitcoin is not insured by the government in case it gets devalued enough to cause a major financial crisis in its market. Some claim that Bitcoin is being used more like a stock than a currency and that once the initial hype dies down its value will eventually decrease to nothing because it doesn’t have anything to offer except for its cool factor. Since Bitcoin is primarily digital (though coins are now available), it can be lost forever if a user loses his/her computer or account in which it’s stored.

What’s next for Bitcoin?

Bitcoin’s future is somewhat uncertain. While the cryptocurrency is still growing, there are many concerns that it’s not worth it. Detractors point out things like a possible Ponzi-style scheme involving Bitcoin in North Texas as indicative of the worthlessness of the currency. On the other hand, Bitcoin-based ventures have been growing, such as the development of startups like Coinffeine, which aims to create a new way to exchange Bitcoins. These are just a few examples of the ways in which Bitcoin is slowly breaking its way in into the mainstream, albeit with many setbacks.

Conclusion

Bitcoin. and other similar digital currencies, is just one of many interesting developments that has come about because of the internet. In essence, it’s a pretty revolutionary and fascinating idea, but whether or not it is actually good for the global economy remains to be seen. The potential for the use of Bitcoin as part of illegal activity though, should not stop people from using it for legitimate means. It’s only through incorporating online tools into the mainstream that it will become a genuinely useful and productive innovation.

Resources

Primary 

Bitcoin: Official Site

US District Court: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Trendon T. Shavers  and Bitcoin Savings & Trust

Additional

European Central Bank: Virtual Currency Schemes

Techland: Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Government, Banks

Coindesk: Confirmed: Bloomberg Staff Are Testing a Bitcoin Price Ticker

CIO: In Kenya, Bitcoin :Linked to Popular Mobile Payment System

ParityNews: The Internet Archive Starts Accepting Bitcoin Donations

Webcite: In Bitcoin We Trust: The Berlin District Where Virtual Currency is as Easy as Cash

Readwrite: What’s Bitcoin Worth in the Real World?

Wire: Today’s Bitcoin Shows Why It’s Not Really a Currency

Fox Business: The Consumer Risks of Bitcoins

Slate: My Money is Cooler Than Yours

Washington Post: Imagining a World Without the Dollar

Social Science Research Network: Are Cryptocurrencies ‘Super’ Tax Havens?

The New York Times: Winklevoss Twins Plan First Funds for Bitcoins

Forbes: Goodbye Switzerland, Hello Bitcoins

Treasury Department: Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies

GAO: Virtual Economies and Currencies: Additional IRS Guidance Could Reduce Tax Compliance Risks

Forbes: IRS Takes a Bite Out of Bitcoin

The New York Times: New York and U.S. Open Investigations Into Bitcoins

TechCrunch: New York’s Financial Services Subpoenas Bitcoin Firms To “Root Out Illegal Activity”

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bitcoin: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

SPECIAL REPORT from The F Word! PEN America liked me so much on Tuesday that they invited me to cover another event last night. So all you Law Street readers get to listen to the melodious sound of my voice an extra time this week. Lucky you.

Anyway! Together with independent researchers at the FDR Group, PEN published a report this week titled Chilling Effects, which found that writers in the U.S. are self-censoring in response to reports of widespread NSA surveillance. Thanks for scaring the crap out of all of us, Edward Snowden!

According to the report, 85% of surveyed writers are actively worrying about government surveillance, and are watching what they say as a result. Twenty-eight percent have reigned in or eliminated their use of social media, 24% have purposely avoided discussing certain topics via phone or email, and 16% have avoided writing or speaking about sensitive subjects. PEN writers report taking surveillance for granted—they simply assume they’re being monitored—and they’re choosing their words wisely so as to avoid harm.

Thanks PEN America!

Folks, this is what censorship looks like.

And it’s real. As a follow-up to Chilling Effects’ publication, PEN hosted a panel discussion last night in conjunction with the ACLU and the Fordham University School of Law. It was, to put it mildly, chilling.

The panel consisted of four men, all of whom had varying levels of expertise on the NSA and government surveillance. They each addressed the audience with separate, 15-minute presentations. If you want to hear them speak for themselves, you can view the live feed here.

Join us live! http://t.co/6fuvleyjLc #WTHarm pic.twitter.com/ATjoqF3uhg

— PENamerican (@PENamerican) November 15, 2013

But really, who needs to watch an hour and a half video when you’ve got me to recap it for you?

The panelists gave us an incredible look into the world of surveillance, from a historical overview of the NSA’s beginnings, right down to their personal experiences with harassment and persecution. According to James Bamford—the only guy who wore a business suit—the NSA got its start in a Manhattan townhouse back in the 1920s. As a top-secret government agency created to assist the World War I effort, this pre-NSA got a copy of every telegram that went in or out of the country.

That’s a lot of paper.

Fast forward to present day and the NSA isn’t just courting the phone or telegram companies—they’ve got software providers in their back pocket. Not to mention, the technological realities of cloud computing and social media mean the NSA doesn’t really have to ask. As fellow panelist and tech-guru Bruce Schneier remarked last night, “We are all leaving digital footprints throughout our lives,” and they’re anyone’s to follow.

Bruce Schneier – aging hippie extraordinaire. Courtesy of Terry Robinson via Flickr.

So what really happens when the NSA follows our tracks? Ariel Dorfman, a Chilean-American playwright and novelist, knows firsthand—he lived in Chile during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship. Dorfman went into exile abroad shortly after Pinochet took office, but was allowed to return in 1983, before the regime’s fall. His poignant description of the Chile he came back to illustrated the fears he had for the future of the U.S.

“People had learned to suspect everyone and everything,” he said, describing friends who had once been open and outspoken as having transformed into guarded strangers. “Chile had become synonymous with silence.”

Indeed, when Dorfman had to dictate a dissenting op-ed over the phone, he was plagued with fear. He described experiencing a panic attack, worrying that the Chilean secret police would arrest and harm his family after eavesdropping on his conversation.

Ariel Dorfman — total bad ass. Courtesy of Robin Kirk via Flickr.

Thankfully, those fears never came true, but American journalist Glenn Greenwald hasn’t been so lucky.  Greenwald is the (in)famous reporter who broke the Edward Snowden leaks, and he spoke on the panel via Skype—an irony he made note of, as the video-calling software is owned by Microsoft, one of the NSA’s most loyal information suppliers.

But there were no other options. A resident of Rio de Janeiro, Greenwald can’t return to the U.S. for fear of being arrested for his NSA coverage. In fact, he’s not travelling at all—and for good reason. This past August, Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, was detained for nine hours by officials at Heathrow Airport in London. They ultimately let him go, but confiscated his electronics first, claiming to be concerned that he was involved in terrorism and espionage.

Essentially, Greenwald and Dorfman are living proof of the fact that government surveillance is scary as shit. And that’s not just because of dystopian what-if scenarios, where all of us paranoiacs predict a turn towards the terror of Pinochet’s Chile.

It’s because, as Greenwald put it, if you want to challenge the powers that be, “the ability to communicate in private is an absolute prerequisite of that.” Without it, we’re incapable of engaging in dissent.

“The minute you know you’re being watched, the less free you become,” Greenwald said.

He’s right, and the crowd agreed. One audience member, J.L. White, stood up to suggest that we seriously consider impeaching President Obama. And after exacerbating the war in Afghanistan, using drones to kill American citizens, and pumping up the NSA’s surveillance efforts, no one in the room disagreed with her.

“What Bush did, Obama put on steroids,” said Bamford, validating White’s point.

But it’s not a hopeless situation. Dorfman expressed optimism, even as he sees alarming parallels between the Obama administration and Pinochet’s.

“They’re going to screw it up,” he said, reminding us that despite all of the surveillance, the government has still been wrong about important events. No one saw the Arab Spring coming, or the Boston Marathon bombing. At the end of the day, our wardens are laughably incompetent.

And while they blunder about, trying to consolidate all the minutiae of our digital lives into something useful, there are tons of people fighting back.

Ben Doernberg is one of them. Another Brooklyn resident, Ben quit his full-time job to organize for Restore the Fourth, a national coalition of grassroots activists agitating against government surveillance. I approached him after the panel, as he stood near the exit, recruiting people to join him in the good fight.

“I just want people to not fall into the trap of just learning more is all you have to do,” he said of the night’s event. “You have to actually do something.”

Will we? It’s hard to tell. With writers self-censoring, journalists and whistleblowers living in exile, and civilians cowering under the fear of terrorism, it’s easy to see how the surveillance state could continue growing.

But Ariel Dorfman, always looking on the bright side, sees hope.

“Fear is contagious, but so is courage,” he said, urging everyone in the room to take a stand.

So what will you do? Tell us in the comments! (Just remember, the government’s watching.)

—

Featured image courtesy of [Truthout.org via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YOU’RE BEING WATCHED RIGHT NOW: Here’s What To Do About It appeared first on Law Street.

A military judge acquitted Pfc. Bradley Manning of aiding the enemy on Tuesday, the most serious of the 22 counts he faced.  However, he was still found guilty of charges that could total a combined 136 years in jail. The charges relate to the massive release of video, diplomatic cables, and classified reports to the website WikiLeaks back in 2010, marking the largest leak of classified material in the history of the United States. Prior to his trial, Manning had pleaded guilty to part of at least 10 different charges and was found guilty on 20 counts Tuesday. The sentencing phase of his trial will begin Wednesday, which will answer most of the remaining questions about the potential for jail time.

In addition to the charge of aiding the enemy, Manning was also found not guilty of leaking a video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that killed many innocent civilians in 2009.  This case is part of the rising trend in document leaking cases. It is one of seven that occurred during the Obama administration alone.  Parallels have also been drawn between this verdict and the fate of Edward Snowden, who leaked classified National Security Agency files earlier this year.  Snowden currently remains in Russia where he awaits a decision on his application for asylum.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [doodle dubz via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Manning Acquitted of ‘Aiding the Enemy’ but Still Guilty appeared first on Law Street.