Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Responds to Unconfirmed Rumors About Her Hospitalization

[nettime's not-so-privileged contact]

Chelsea Manning’s Legal Team Responds to Unconfirmed Rumors About Her
Hospitalization

Posted 14:06 EDT on July 6, 2016


For Immediate Release: July 6, 2016
Contact: Christina DiPasquale, 202.716.1953, christ...@balestramedia.com

https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2016-07-06-chelsea-mannings-legal-team-responds-to/

Today, an unnamed official at the Army revealed unverified information
relating to Chelsea Manning’s confidential medical status to the media
and Nancy Hollander, lead attorney on her defense team, released the
following statement:

“We’re shocked and outraged that an official at Leavenworth contacted
the press with private confidential medical information about Chelsea
Manning yet no one at the Army has given a shred of information to her
legal team.

“I had a privileged call scheduled with Chelsea at 2pm Leavenworth time
yesterday, after the Army has now said she was hospitalized, but the
Army gave the excuse—which I now believe to be an outright lie—that the
call could not be connected although my team was waiting by the phone.

“Despite the fact that they have reached out to the media, and that any
other prison will connect an emergency call, the Army has told her
lawyers that the earliest time that they will accommodate a call between
her lawyers and Chelsea is Friday morning. We call on the Army to
immediately connect Chelsea Manning to her lawyers and friends who care
deeply about her well-being and are profoundly distressed by the
complete lack of official communication about Chelsea’s current situation.”

###

Fight for the Future is a digital rights group that has been supporting
Chelsea Manning while in prison. This press release was posted with the
approval of her attorneys.



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

hacking 4 Whisteblowing digest [x2: byfield, coleman]

[nettime's_dumpster_diver]

Re:  What were the first instances of hacking 4

 "t byfield" 
 "Gabriella \"Biella\" Coleman" 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "t byfield" 
Subject: Re:  What were the first instances of hacking 4
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 13:33:40 -0400

Funny that your first message begins "I am writing a piece that is 
trying to historicize direct action hacking/whistel blowing" and your 
second begins "I am not looking to historicize the phrase or word 
whistleblowing or leak." :^) Of course I understand that there are (said 
to be) differences between words and things, and that there are 
different gradations of what it can mean to historicize a subject, if 
only for the practical goal of narrowing the scope of an argument.

I think you'd probably agree that one of the central themes in 
whistleblowing and leaks, even defined in strictly 'technical' terms, is 
the tension between what is and/or should be public. Those definitions 
have been changing with whiplash-inducing speed because of new 
technologies, shifts in governance techniques, the rise of intellectual 
property, etc -- the various fields within which whistleblowing and 
leaks are often technically defined. So one danger of *dehistoricizing* 
these kinds of actions is that it tends to accept as a given the 
'technical' apparatus (technological, legal, political) that treats 
these transfers of knowledge as a private crime rather than a public 
service -- which is the often the kind of broad belief that drives the 
messengers. (Obviously, I'm not suggesting your work has had that effect 
-- if anything, it's the opposite.)

But there isn't a neat distinction between big-H Historicizing and 
little-h historicizing. Activists like Erin Brockovich or Karen Silkwood 
probably meet most of your definitions, and Mordechai Vanunu probably 
does too If you look through publications like 2600 and Phrack -- or, 
before them, YIPL -- you'll find all kinds of liminal cases going back 
30-40 years that are partly electronic/computery and partly not. Ditto 
for many of the phreaks documented so brilliantly in Phil Lapsley's book 
_Exploding the Phone_.

Cheers,
T

On 6 Jul 2016, at 11:41, Gabriella "Biella" Coleman wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> I am not looking to historicize the phrase or word whistleblowing or
> leak though that no doubt would be interesting :) Hope someone takes
> that on.
 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subject: Re:  What were the first instances of hacking 4
From: "Gabriella \"Biella\" Coleman" 
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:14:57 -0400

Hi Ted,

Sorry: all your points are excellent and I should have been doubly even
more clear. I am writing a very brief, policy report (3000 words) about
the legacy of Anonymous. I am simply making a pretty narrow and basic
claim that they are important for pioneering this narrow genre of
hacking-to-leak.. and I am not only looking not only at the technical
side of things but how important their publicity machine was for
popularizing the tactic.

Also your point about what is allowed to stand as public is important
for this case: journalists have been willing to report on the HBGary,
Sony Pictures, Hacking Team emails. Had they refused, these leaks could
been cast as purely criminal. So excellent point.

A larger more nuanced project would stand to benefit in all the ways you
have suggested.. and who knows maybe I or someone else will do that work
one day.

I am also for reasons having to do with space/time excluding what I do
think are super valid technical leaks that have been the bread and
butter of hackers and phreaks since they existed and also serve the
public interest.  And here I am thinking of everything from full
disclosure movement, to Goatsees' AT dump, to the release of PGP.

Biella


On 2016-07-06 01:33 PM, t byfield wrote:

> Funny that your first message begins "I am writing a piece that is
> trying to historicize direct action hacking/whistel blowing" and your
> second begins "I am not looking to historicize the phrase or word
> whistleblowing or leak." :^) Of course I understand that there are
> (said to be) differences between words and things, and that there are
> different gradations of what it can mean to historicize a subject, if
> only for the practical goal of narrowing the scope of an argument.
 <...>

--
Gabriella Coleman
Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy
Department of Art History & Communication Studies
McGill University
853 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, PQ
H3A 0G5
http://gabriellacoleman.org/
514-398-8572

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list 

Re: What were the first instances of hacking 4

[Gabriella "Biella" Coleman]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for raising this example. I am briefly mentioning it ... as it is
similar to what happened with ASC law... and am familiar with the case
as I used to be part of the OPG. But still the difference it was not
hackers mucking about as had been the case with ACS law. It also was
significant for giving a sense of just what an email leak could offer
but people were thankfully protected for the reasons you mention below
(ie, they acquired it legally thanks to sloppy security).

But still looking for any examples of more pure PWNAGE with a
complementary public interest leak/dump prior to Anonymous (and
excluding the Scientology example!)

All best,
Biella

On 2016-07-06 01:56 PM, Steve McLaughlin wrote:

> I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but the accidental leak of
> Diebold's source code and internal emails in 2003 comes to mind. It didn't
> contain a smoking gun as far as I know, just evidence of sloppy voting
> booth security.
 <...>

-- 
Gabriella Coleman
Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy
Department of Art History & Communication Studies
McGill University
853 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, PQ
H3A 0G5
http://gabriellacoleman.org/
514-398-8572

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Ethereum: DAO - "The Attacker"

[Jaromil]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016, Fenwick Mckelvey wrote:

>Hi,
>Just looking over Morlock's comments now and, Jaromil, I'm wondering if
>you had any more comments or links about criticisms of Popper's book
>about BitCoin. It comes up a lot as a reference and I'd appreciate some
>more perspective.

That book is a sanitized history seen from the point of view of the
winners, paraphrasing his words in this one.

I have zero interest reading a book written like that.  so will just
disclose here our post-book exchange.  I believe his book is one of
many marketing operations to synthesize a different glorification of
Bitcoin. It boils down to the question: should writers come from
different contexts?

Bitcoin has already its collective process of writing, let it be not
perfect but at least a decent attempt, which is lead by Andreas
Antonopoulos.

about China: yes true OK and there is Russia and there is Poland, so
what? ze planet iz zpherical.

Bitcoin perfect? I doubt anything is.

But deception is bad taste.

I conversed in person with Nathaniel Popper.  We met on the 15 May
2014, he introduced himself as interested in doing Amir's biography
(which somehow did not surprise me, after Amir was listed on Fortune
100 and wonderful stuff like that). I did gave him historical digital
footage of Bitcoin Amir and colorful stories of the Bitcoin scene in
2009 and 2010. He did mention the result would be a bit fictional, but
now he negates that so its his word against mine.

I saw a newyorkeese Gustave Flaubert in front of me.

Ruined by hundreds of years of marketing schools of course.




May 24

Jaromil Rojo

 hi NAthaniel, just leaving a note about how deluded I am after
 helping you retrieve some materials to be completely excluded from
 your book acknowledgments. Will keep in mind for next time. bye

Nathaniel Popper

 hey jaromil -- thanks for the note. i wasn't able to get enough to
 write about amir in the book -- but i've looked back in my emails and
 you are right that you were a

May 25

Jaromil Rojo

 well, omitting Amir from the history of Bitcoin is a big mistake. He
 is as relevant if not even more than Gavin and his contributions are
 important in one of the best wallets (Electrum) and the
 libbitcoin. What comes to me in mind is that the exclusion is of
 political nature. I have not read your book yet.

 I'm just gathering notes on my own version of this stories and I'm
 open to hear your interpretation. You also admitted since the
 beginning that your work was partly fictional.

---
(here of course is my word against his. I recall clearly the episode)
---

Nathaniel Popper

 i did not admit that my work was partly fictional -- and it is not. i
 wanted to include amir, but unfortunately in explaining the rise of
 bitcoin his story diverged from that of bitcoin too many times and i
 ultimately determined that he didn't have much impact on the
 development of bitcoin, i think he's a fascinating guy -- and wanted
 to include him for that reason. but the decision to exclude him was
 not political.


Jaromil Rojo

 His contribution to the technical and social rise of Bitcoin was
 crucial to say the least, this is my independent
 assessment. Acknowledging you eliminate him and my contribution to
 your research I do believe your exclusion is political.

 I also clearly recall the day we met in the Rijksmuseum park in
 Amsterdam you introduced me your research for a book that would
 fictionalize aspects of Bitcoin. The history of Bitcoin is still
 unfolding and manipulations of it are fairly relevant to understand
 the placement of all actors. As of today and based on facts, I do
 consider your book a political manipulation of such history.

 I'm writing this directly to you because I'm not hypocritical and I
 don't like playing silly games, also to leave open a channel of
 communication. I will include the above assessment in the public and
 private documentation I produce.

May 30
Nathaniel Popper

 i certainly think amir is a fascinating and smart guy, and some of
 the points he made have been borne out in time (he was one of the
 early folks calling for multiple implementations of the core
 software, which would have potentially helped avert the current
 disagreement). but my research led me to the conclusion that his
 contribution was not crucial in determining the direction bitcoin
 ultimately took. my book was about how bitcoin got to where it ended
 up -- and that certainly meant that i focused more time on the
 "winners" in the various bitcoin debates. i don't think that was
 political. that was just how i approached the story. one thing i held
 from the beginning was that this would be a true story. i wouldn't
 have told you that i intended this to be fiction because i never
 wanted it to be that. in any case, happy to discuss more. thanks for
 returning to me with your questions.









Of the many materials which I've given to Nathaniel Popper that he
never published, my favorite I'll 

Re: What were the first instances of hacking 4

[Gabriella "Biella" Coleman]

Hi Ted,

I am not looking to historicize the phrase or word whistleblowing or
leak though that no doubt would be interesting :) Hope someone takes
that on.

I am looking for concrete examples and instances of a sub-genre of
whistleblowing: hackers breaking into a computer system *and* finding
emails/documents that are newsworthy and leaking them to the public

The exemplar examples from Anonymous are

1. ACS Law leaks (not rly resulting from a hack but... very close).
2. HB Gary leaks
3. Stratfor leaks

And then other good examples

1. CIA emails by cracka
2. Sony pictures email by GOP (even though the political motivation is
very unclear, super interesting info in there and was used by
journalists to write stories about gender disparity
3. Like all of Phineas Phisher's hacks for leaking
4. Lulzsec Peru's hack of the Peruvian gov and leaking emails with
evidence of massive government corruption that almost brought the
cabinet down.
5. Others I have collected ... (more minor and all post the Anonymous era).

There were many many website defacements and also what I would
characterize as sabotage leaks but not much in the form of public
interest leaking (and again excluding vulnerability research/data which
to be sure can take the form of a public interest hack and leak).


Biella

On 2016-07-06 11:23 AM, t byfield wrote:

> This is a great question. I guess you've used the bog-standard method
> of looking it up? Etymology is pretty old-fashioned, I know, but you
> never know what you'll turn up -- like the Oxford English Dictionary's
> attestations of the phrase 'blow the whistle' in P. G. Wodehouse
> (1934) and Raymond Chandler (1953). Granted, two examples are a pretty
> flimsy basis for constructing a theory, but already there seems like
> there might be a divide between one sense (British?) of
> announcing/introducing -- think regimental assemblies -- and another
> (American?) of a cop interrupting a crime and/or calling attention to
> it. Both of those are images are overflowing with evocative
> suggestions of space, how it's organized, and the place of different
> kinds of agency in it. Note the ambivalent present of, let's say, *the
> state*: blowing a whistle serves to mobilize or synchronize scattered
> activity or attention. There are many lots more interesting examples.
> My hunch is that you'll find the phrase paces the rise of a regulatory
> state bureaucracy.
 <...>

-- 
Gabriella Coleman
Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy
Department of Art History & Communication Studies
McGill University
853 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, PQ
H3A 0G5
http://gabriellacoleman.org/
514-398-8572


#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: What were the first instances of hacking 4

[t byfield]

This is a great question. I guess you've used the bog-standard method of 
looking it up? Etymology is pretty old-fashioned, I know, but you never 
know what you'll turn up -- like the Oxford English Dictionary's 
attestations of the phrase 'blow the whistle' in P. G. Wodehouse (1934) 
and Raymond Chandler (1953). Granted, two examples are a pretty flimsy 
basis for constructing a theory, but already there seems like there 
might be a divide between one sense (British?) of announcing/introducing 
-- think regimental assemblies -- and another (American?) of a cop 
interrupting a crime and/or calling attention to it. Both of those are 
images are overflowing with evocative suggestions of space, how it's 
organized, and the place of different kinds of agency in it. Note the 
ambivalent present of, let's say, *the state*: blowing a whistle serves 
to mobilize or synchronize scattered activity or attention. There are 
many lots more interesting examples. My hunch is that you'll find the 
phrase paces the rise of a regulatory state bureaucracy.


The default examples are Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, of course, 
but -- really surprising, IMO -- the OED's definition 1(b) for the verb 
"to leak out (fig.)"...


to transpire or become known in spite of efforts at concealment

...is based on several citations dated 1832-1884, most of suggest or 
mention the ur-medium: rumor. As with many things, I think it's less a 
question of progress (say, in terms of novel ways to disseminate 
~privileged knowledge in documentary form) than of forgetting that leaks 
and whistleblowing, under other names, are also probably the oldest 
'media.'


Just to be clear, my point isn't to reaffirm some grumpy insistence that 
nothing has changed -- everything has.


Cheers,
T

On 6 Jul 2016, at 9:01, Gabriella "Biella" Coleman wrote:


   Hi all,

I am writing a piece that is trying to historicize direct action
hacking/whistel blowing and am trying to pin point any early examples
of hackers hacking in order to access and then leak the
information/emails to ex pose wrong doing..

<...>

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: