Lorax Live on Radio AnonOps with Jay Leiderman

The Hitchhiker's Legal Guide to the Cyber Galaxy

18 October 2013

Link to the show: 

 http://www.anonymousvideo.eu/anonymous.php?page=radio_anonops_jeremy_hammond

Lorax Live  Jay Leiderman

Jay Leiderman is a criminal law specialist and defense attorney who has represented members of Anonymous and Lulzsec.

A Donation Plea From "Free Barrett Brown"

Dear friend of press freedom,

I’m writing to you with an urgent request: your support for the legal defense fund of Barrett Brown, an investigative journalist now facing life in prison as a result of his writing and research.

American journalism is under attack in 2013. In recent years we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of criminal investigations targeting reporters and whistleblowers, while prosecutors abuse vague laws regarding computer use to threaten activists with outrageous sentences. Today Barrett Brown faces the full weight of this crackdown. It’s up to us to ensure that Barrett sees justice and defeats the wildly excessive charges against him.

Barrett’s career as a journalist is a brave and colorful one. He has written for publications including Vanity Fair, the Guardian, and the Huffington Post; and he co-authored a popular book, Flock of Dodos. In 2010, the revelations brought to light by WikiLeaks spurred Barrett to start investigating the secretive world of private cybersecurity, defense and intelligence contractors. Barrett founded an independent think-tank, Project PM, and started reporting on the Anonymous hacktivist collective.

When Anonymous hacked into the records of the private security firm HBGary Federal in early 2011, Barrett’s zeal for transparency in taxpayer-funded yet little-known defense projects led him to spend months researching this company’s corrupt activities. He did the same in 2012, after the leak of thousands of records from the private intelligence firm Stratfor.

• Glenn Greenwald: ”Brown is a serious journalist who has spent the last several years doggedly investigating the shadowy and highly secretive underworld of private intelligence and defense contractors, who work hand-in-hand with the agencies of the Surveillance and National Security State in all sorts of ways that remain completely unknown to the public. It is virtually impossible to conclude that the obscenely excessive prosecution he now faces is unrelated to that journalism and his related activism.”

Despite his achievements, Barrett now waits in prison to fight a sentence of up to 105 years. The 17 charges against him are based on Barrett having blogged openly about FBI harassment of him and his family; on Barrett allegedly having hidden a laptop when a family member’s home was raided by the FBI in search of evidence against him; on his allegedly having “trafficked in stolen goods” — that is, Stratfor documents containing clients’ credit card data; and on his alleged “dissemination” of the Stratfor documents by simply copying and pasting a link to them in an online chat. There is no indication that Barrett sought to use the credit card numbers in any way; in fact, he publicly condemned Anonymous’ suggestion of doing so. As a journalist, Barrett felt responsible for exposing to the public the inner workings of firms contracting with the U.S. government — and for his efforts, he may receive a lifetime in prison.

Barrett’s prosecution highlights critical issues for American journalists, activists, and internet users:

• The right to link. The charges against Barrett for sharing the Stratfor data represent an attempt to criminalize linking. What does this mean for the rights of internet users, let alone journalists who link to primary source material? Online linking is used by millions daily. What absurd legal theory makes an internet user responsible for the content and consequences of a shared link, resulting in criminal charges?

• Information and press freedom. Barrett’s work to uncover the activities of private security and intelligence companies made him a prime target for prosecution. If citizens are prevented from researching the growing surveillance state, what will become of privacy, transparency, and civil liberties in America? Already we see chilling effects on journalists working to shed light on corruption and abuse among government contractors.

• Selective prosecution. Many others — including established reporters — shared the same link to Stratfor data named in Barrett’s indictment. Why is only Barrett being prosecuted? And why is the FBI worried enough about the speech of an unarmed writer to conduct heavily-armed raids on his home? Barrett’s case is a prime example of the DOJ’s current prosecutorial abuse of journalists, whistleblowers, and information activists.

• Reporters’ privilege. The laptop that Barrett allegedly hid contained journalistic sources and work product, including a book in progress. The First Amendment protects reporters from revealing confidential information or sources. It isn’t hard to conclude that the charges based on Barrett’s alleged concealment amount to an effort to stifle his reporting on America’s growing surveillance industry.

Fortunately, two of the most skilled and dedicated lawyers in the country have taken up the fight: Charles Swift and Ahmed Ghappour, best known for their advocacy on behalf of Guantánamo detainees, winning a victory over the Bush administration in a 2006 Supreme Court case. But even with expert representation, Barrett’s defense calls for resources that he doesn’t have. Your support is urgently needed to help Barrett regain his freedom and continue his vital work. And this is not Barrett’s fight alone — the outcome of this case will affect every American’s rights to free speech, to independent journalism, and to political activism. Not only does Barrett deserve a future — so do all of us, to preserve our right to know what our government does in secret, yet in our names.

Barrett’s trial begins in September. His defense is being funded entirely through individual donors. With less than three months to go, will you help today?

Three easy ways to contribute:

• WePay

• PayPal: donate@freebarrettbrown.org

• Checks or money orders mailed to: Free Barrett Brown Ltd., P.O. Box 2658, Amherst, MA 01004

Suggested levels of support:

•     $30 — Friend of Online Journalism

•     $60 — Friend of Press Freedom

•     $120 — Friend of Barrett Brown

•     $300 — Friend of the First Amendment

•     $600 — Friend of the Constitution

•     $1000 — Friend of Justice

Don’t let the government take away a courageous journalist’s life with abusive prosecution for alleged information “crimes.” Free Barrett Brown.

With many thanks, and in solidarity,

Kevin M. Gallagher
Director
Free Barrett Brown

Twitter: @FreeBarrett_

Facebook: Free Barrett Brown

Website: freebarrettbrown.org

Jay Leiderman on Voice of Russia Radio Discussing the Bradley Manning Trial

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/114960376.html 

Afternoon Show   →   Opinion: Manning trial is about 'the public's right to know what their government is up to'

Tags: Politics, Interviews, US, Wikileaks, Bradley Manning

Rob Sachs

Jun 3, 2013 14:56

Military. iStockphoto/Thinkstock.

WASHINGTON -- The Bradley Manning trial began Monday at Fort Meade, MD. In February, Manning pleaded guilty to lesser charges that could result in 20 years behind bars, but prosecutors are hoping for an "aiding the enemy" charge that could result in life behind bars.

Voice of Russia's Rob Sachs talks with Jay Leiderman, a lawyer based in California who often represents those in the internet hacking community

http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/70924886/114960376.html 

Please visit the Bradley Manning Support Network to learn more about the case: http://www.bradleymanning.org/

“If you had free reign over classified networks… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?”

“God knows what happens now.  Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms… I want people to see the truth… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

-Quotes from an online chat attributed to Bradley Manning

Nobel Peace Prize nominee PFC Bradley Manning, a 25-year-old Army intelligence analyst, who released the Collateral Murder video, that shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists, by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. Manning also shared documents known as the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables. These documents were published by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, and they have illuminated such issues as the true number and cause of civilian casualties in Iraq, along with a number of human rights abuses by U.S.-funded contractors and foreign militaries, and the role that spying and bribes play in international diplomacy. Given the war crimes exposed by these documents,  PFC Bradley Manning should be given a medal of honor.

Read more about Bradley Mannning here.

Julian Assange runs for Australian Senate

Jay Leiderman on RT News 4 February 2013

Published on Feb 4, 2013Julian Assange is no stranger to controversy and this time the whistleblower is making headlines for a different reason. Australia has confirmed that the WikiLeaks co-founder is running for office. Assange has made a name for himself for exposing government secrets, but now he seeks a senate seat as a member of the WikiLeaks Party. So does candidate Assange have a fighting chance to infiltrate the political world? Jay Leiderman a lawyer for Leiderman Devine LLP gives us his take on the matter.

Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/usa/where-to-watch/Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/
Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTAmericaFollow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_America

Category
News & Politics

Protest Speech and the Digital Revolution

The unpolished draft of the op-ed written for the Guardian

There is no weapon on the planet more powerful than speech.  In recent years, the digital revolution has led to new and unique ways for people to express themselves.  Speech has flourished around the globe, and brought the world closer together.  As a lawyer and as someone who promotes the advancement of individual liberties, I was fascinated by the advent of online speech, and then the advent of online protest. 

While affixing your e-signature to an online petition is a new and somewhat direct way to “petition your government for a redress of grievances,” I am most concerned with advocating for more immediate and effective manners of protest.   Accordingly, I was quite interested in December 2010 when the hacktivist collective Anonymous took to the internet to voice their displeasure with PayPal over their part in the banking blockade of Wikileaks.  A reported 10,000 protestors around the world voiced their displeasure with PayPal by using a protest method known as DDoS.  DDoS is the functional equivalent of hitting the refresh button on a computer repeatedly.  With enough people refreshing enough times, the site is flooded with traffic and slowed or even temporarily knocked offline.  No damage is done to the site or backing computer system, and when the protest is over, the site resumes business as usual. 

This is not “hacking.”  It is protest.  It is speech. 

True, customers of the site are temporarily inconvenienced, but democracy is often messy and inconvenient. Moreover, to hear the voice of your fellow citizen for a moment should always be worth slowing down for.  Exposure to new or differing views enriches us all.  Such was the case with the 2010 PayPal DDoS protest.

Or, at least, it was until the United States Government decided to serve 42 warrants and indict 14 protesters.  While protest crimes have typically been seen as tantamount to nuisance type behavior, like trespassing or loitering, these were different.  The 14 PayPal defendants, some of whom were teenagers when the protest occurred, find themselves looking at 15 years in federal prison.  For exercising their free speech rights.  For redressing their grievances to PayPal, a major corporation.  For standing up for what they believed was right.  Instead of facing a $50 fine, like one would face for traditional protest crimes like a sit-in, the PayPal defendant’s freedoms are in real jeopardy. 

To address this situation, there was some more traditional, yet still-modern speech aimed at the White House.  An online a petition has been launched asking that DDoS be treated as speech.  I wholeheartedly support this concept.  Being mindful that all protest must be reasonable in time, place and manner, I believe that there is room in cyberspace, indeed in the world, for this type of protest activity. 

The example used above, that of the PayPal protest, is again apt to analogize why DDoS is speech.  Just like civil rights protestors who went to the Woolworth’s lunch counter in the segregated American South of the 1960’s to seek a simple meal, people went to PayPal to express their desire to make a donation to WikiLeaks.  In Woolworth’s the protestors made plain their goal: “If you serve me a meal, I will eat it, pay for it and then I will leave.”  This simple concept was lost on the Jim Crow South.  And so protest became necessary.  Certainly this situation is a lesser evil.  No one suggests it is not.  But the analogy is apt nonetheless.  Thousands of PayPal protestors said, via their protest speech in DDoS form: “I want to make a donation to WikiLeaks, I’ll take up my bandwidth to do that, then I’ll leave, you’ll make money, I’ll feel fulfilled, everyone wins.”  But alas, PayPal, and their parent company eBay were not in the win-win business.  They were in the censorship business.  Censorship is not something Anonymous suffers lightly.  PayPal will take donations for the Ku Klux Klan, other racist and questionable organizations, but they won’t process donations for WikiLeaks.  So it came to pass that thousands of displeased people around the globe voiced their displeasure via a DDoS protest.   All the PayPal protesters did was take up some bandwidth.  PayPal claimed – almost as a cry of victory – that their site never even went offline.  In that example, DDoS was used as an almost pure form of protest expression.  Accordingly, it was speech, it should absolutely be recognized as such and protected as such.   The law should be changed. 

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is being used to stifle new and creative forms of online expression.  This type of harmless creative protest should be encouraged.  Our nation was built upon the principles of free speech.  If the founders of this great nation saw the abuses of the laws as applied to these minor protests I think they would be shocked and offended. 

Our best and brightest should be encouraged to find new methods of expression.  Direct actions in protest should be encouraged, not stifled.  The dawning of the digital age should be seen as an opportunity to expand our knowledge and collectively work together to enhance our communication.  Government should have the greatest interest in promoting speech, especially unpopular speech.  If new and contrary methods of speech became mainstream, they would need no protection.  The majority, the corporatocracy and the oligarchs are, no doubt, displeased by dissent.  Such is the nature of dissent.  When the world becomes perfect, no one will ever have need to protest.  Until then, the Government should never be used to stifle the new and creative – not to mention effective – methods of speech and expression.   Since the PayPal prosecution there has been no DDoS protests on that scale.  Speech has been chilled.  

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”  Toward that end, let’s begin a conversation about carving out some room for DDoS to be seen as protest speech deserving of First Amendment protection.