WIKILEAKS

PayPal, whose parent is eBay, says it stopped allowing people to pay for donations to Wikileaks through them from a letter from the US government.  PayPal suspended payments to Wikileaks last week, and has been followed by Visa Europe and Mastercard.  Amazon and Swiss bank PostFinance have also cut ties with Wikileaks. (see more here)

Hackers immediately attacked those whom they see as WikiLeaks enemies.  Among the attacked were MasterCard, Amazon and PayPal causing several corporate Web sites to become unavailable or slow down markedly.Apparently no individual accounts were compromised in any way. (click here for the NY Times article.)

The whole issue is really a can of worms.  People's right to free speech, giving money where they choose to causes they seriously believe in, and issues of jurisdiction become paramount as the world overlaps itself.  When the government is unable to pass a bill to prevent unemployment checks to those who desperately need them, it sets people to wondering about the things theyh do that are not forced to be voted on, just done in the name of security.

According to some people familiar with the State Department leaks, they seem to be rather serious in the negative affect they have on our relations with other countries, many of whom say they will not speak to Americans in the State Department because they can no longer trust that names will not be written down and who knows where they will turn up. Nevertheless, as always in situations like this with whistleblowers, it serves to make everyone aware just how fragile our secrecy and operations are in terms of keeping our laundry, dirty or otherwise, to ourselves.

WIKILEAKS: LOOKING INTO THE WORLD'S KEYHOLE

Years ago, I had a conversation with someone dear to me and spoke with complete candor.  A few days later I received a phone call from the person about whom we spoke.  Since the major focus in that conversation was rather negative, there was a great deal of anger and confrontation when that person reached me.  It seemed I was expected to deny that I had said the things that were being repeated to me.  As annoyed as I was at my conversation having been shared with the party, I could only say that what was being repeated to me was accurate but as my conversation was meant for someone else's ears, I was sorry our conversation had not remained private. I felt I had no choice but to be direct with my attacker.and defend that I may not have said flattering things, but I spoke my truth in my opinions.

As with the current 'wiki' leaks, there should be no apologies for whatever had been written or said. People who listen at keyholes to conversations not meant for their ears rarely hear flattery.  Tactfulness is lessused when it is thought to be a private conversation about a third party.  It is likely that the shock of what actually was said may be new to the  public at large, but is less likely to be so for the parties involved since each side spies on the other constantly and probably quite successfully.

There may be a few people embarrassed that their lack of tact was exposed but from what has been aired so far, I hardly see anything that will start a war. Iran is unlikely to have learned anything that wasn't already quite apparent.  That the Americans fought Iraq with an abuse of Geneva Convention.  That betrayal cannot be a surprise to anyone.  It has already been much publicized.  However, those who think they are safe as long as what is said and done is not proven to the public, will learn otherwise.  Those who believe the lies being provided by some media might continue denying what they hear and will make up a new scenario to explain whatever comes out of the leaks.  We have many 'open mike' examples with considerable embarrassment.

The government will continue to focus on the whistle blower rather than the content of that which was blown.  Julian Assange will continue to be hunted like a criminal simply because he wants transparency.  That the transparency is involuntary is really what bothers people.  They will read everything in which they are not quoted but abhor anyone quoting them.  Isn't it time some people have to be honest about all of what they say not meant for public consumption?  If there is really to be top secret communication, safer ways of encrypting it will have to be worked out.  Meanwhile, it is important that people in government work not have the illusion that they remain hidden.  What Cheney managed to do the Valerie Plame was much worse!