8 0 2 9 when we fight we win, release all political prisoners and the time is
almost 7 p.m. which means to stay tuned for off the hook coming up here on WBAI
New York 99.5 FM and WBAI.org online stay tuned
We're sorry the number you have reached 99.5 WBAI is now off the hook the number
you have dialed is incomplete please check the number and try again
the number you have dialed is incomplete please check the number and try again
we couldn't get much worse but if they could they would
or did we fall for the best expect the worst?
I hope that's understood one day we'll know
and a very good evening to everybody the program is off the hook
Emmanuel Goldstein here with you
joined tonight by Kyle over yonder
and out in Skype land we have Rob T Firefly
good evening
we have Gila
good evening
and we have Alex
you do good evening
welcome everybody sorry I don't know if anybody caught it but we played the recordings in reverse order
that's a mistake we don't usually do that
I also want to remind people please support this radio station because this radio station
brings you such fantastic programming
and I'm going to ask you to do that at the beginning of the show
and I'm going to ask you to do that after we have a discussion at the end of the show
and maybe you will feel that this place is super important by the end of the show
I sure hope so
the number to call 212-209-2950 the website to go to is give2wbai.org
and usually I say give the number to WBAI.org
but I've since learned that we have gone out and registered the word to as well
so give2 spelled T-O-W-B-A-I.org goes to the same place imagine that
so we don't have to say that anymore
but please support this radio station it is really really important
in the world of free speech which we are going to be delving into with a passion today
I'm going to start by reading a bit of a little story
sit close by the radio because this is going to be rather interesting
it's a story that ran in a news organization known as Reuters back in November
you might have read it
it's called How an Indian Startup Hacked the World
we can't read the whole thing it's 21 pages long
but we're going to read a little bit of it
it's again called How an Indian Startup Hacked the World
came out in November
Chuck Randall was on the verge of unveiling an ambitious real estate deal
he hoped would give his small Native American tribe a bigger cut
of a potentially lucrative casino project
a well-timed leak derailed it all
in July of 2012 printed excerpts from Randall's private emails
were hand distributed across the Shinnecock Nation's Square Mile Reservation
a wooded peninsula hanging off the South Fork of Long Island
the five-page pamphlets detailed secret negotiations between Randall
his tribal government allies and outside investors
to wrest some of the profits from the tribe's then-partner in the gambling deal
they sparked an uproar
the pamphlets claimed Randall's plan would sell out the tribe's lands
resources and future revenues
within days four of Randall's allies were voted out of tribal government
Randall, who held no formal position with the tribe
was ordered to cease acting on his behalf
amid the upheaval, the Shinnecock's casino hopes faded
we lost the biggest economic opportunity that has come to the tribe in forever
Randall told Reuters, my emails were weaponized
the scandal that roiled the Shinnecocks barely registered beyond the reservation
but it was part of a phenomenon that has drawn interest from law enforcement
and intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic
Randall's inbox was breached by a New Delhi-based information technology firm
named Appen, whose sudden interference in the matters of a faraway tribe
was part of a sprawling cyber-mercenary operation
that extended across the world, a Reuters investigation found
the Indian company hacked on an industrial scale
stealing data from political leaders, international executives
prominent attorneys, and more
by the time of the Shinnecock scandal
Appen was a premier provider of cyber-espionage services
for private investigators working on behalf of big business, law firms, and wealthy clients
unauthorized access to computer systems is a crime worldwide, including in India
yet at least 17 pitch documents prepared for prospective business partners
and reviewed by Reuters advertised Appen's prowess
in activities such as cyber-spying, email monitoring, cyber-warfare, and social engineering
security lingo for manipulating people into revealing sensitive information
in one 2010 presentation, the company explicitly bragged about hacking businessmen
on behalf of corporate clients
Reuters previously named Appen in a story about Indian cyber-mercenaries published last year
other media outlets, including the New Yorker, Paris-based Intelligence Online
Swiss investigative program Ronschau, and tech companies such as Alphabet on Google
have also reported on the firm's activities
this report paints the clearest picture yet of how Appen operated
detailing the world-spanning extent of its business
and international law enforcement's abortive efforts to get a handle on it
run by a pair of brothers, Rajat and Anuj Kaur
the company began as a small Indian educational startup
it went on to train a generation of spies for hire that are still in business today
several cyber-defense training organizations in India carry the Appen name
the legacy of an old franchise model
but there's no suggestion that those firms are involved in hacking
Rajat Kaur's U.S. representative, the law firm Claire Locke
rejected any association between its client and the cyber-mercenary business
it said Kaur had never operated or supported
and certainly did not create any illegal hack-for-hire industry in India or anywhere else
in a series of letters sent to Reuters over the past year
Claire Locke said that Mr. Kaur has dedicated much of his career
to the fields of information technology security
that is, cyber-defense and the prevention of illicit hacking
Claire Locke said that under Kaur's tenure
Appen specialized in training thousands of students in cyber-security
robotics and artificial intelligence
never in illicit hacking
the lawyers said Kaur left Appen in part
because rogue actors were operating under the company's brand
and he wanted to avoid the appearance of associations with people who are misusing the Appen name
the lawyers described media articles tying Kaur to hacking as false or fundamentally flawed
as for the 2010 Appen presentation boasting of hacking services
they said Kaur had never seen it before
the document is a forgery or was doctored, they said
Claire Locke added that Kaur could not be held responsible for Appen employees
who went on to work as mercenary hackers
saying that doing so would be akin to holding Harvard University responsible
for the terrorist bombings carried out by his former student Ted Kaczynski
referring to the former math prodigy known as the Unabomber
a lawyer acting for Rajat's brother Anuj
said his client's position was the same as the one laid out by Claire Locke
this report on Appen draws on thousands of company emails
as well as financial records, presentations, photos and instant messages from the firm
reporters also reviewed case files from American, Norwegian, Dominican and Swiss law enforcement
and interviewed dozens of former Appen employees
and hundreds of victims of India-based hackers
writers gathered the information, or gathered the material rather
which spans 2005 until earlier in 2023
from ex-employees, clients and security professionals who have studied the company
writers verified the authenticity of the Appen communications
with 15 people, including private investigators
who commissioned hacks and ex-Appen hackers themselves
the news agency also asked US cybersecurity firm Sentinel-1
to review the material for signs that it had been digitally altered
the firm said it found none
we assessed the emails to be accurately represented
and verifiably associated with the Appen organization
Sentinel-1 researcher Tom Hagel said
though Care's lawyers say Appen focused on teaching cybersecurity and cyber defense
company communications seen by Reuters
detailed the creation of an arsenal of hacking tools
including malicious code and websites
Hagel and two other US-based researchers
one from cybersecurity firm Mandiant
the other from Symantec
all working independently
were able to match that infrastructure
to publicly known cyber espionage campaigns
it all lines up perfectly, Hagel said
over the past decade, Google saw hackers linked to Appen
target tens of thousands of email accounts on its service alone
that's according to Shane Huntley
who leads California company's cyber threat intelligence team
to the point that we actually had to expand our systems and procedures
to work out how to track them, Huntley said
the original Appen has now largely disappeared from public view
but its impact is still felt today
copycat firms led by Appen alumni continue to target thousands
according to court records and cybersecurity industry reporting
well, that's about as far as I want to get
but as I said, it's 21 pages long
we got into four pages of it
it's a fascinating story, it's a story that I imagine people
really are interested in finding out more about
here's the problem though
you won't find this story on the internet
at least not on the Reuters site, why?
because it's been taken down
because of threats from courts in India
from all kinds of
legal firms
not only has this story disappeared
but many stories that talk about the story disappearing
have also disappeared
it's actually more interesting than what Appen is being accused of here
which we can also discuss
but I think really what people in the hacking community
people in the freedom of speech community
are most fascinated by is when
powerful firms are able to silence
critics or investigators
and just shut down the conversation
we've seen many stories disappear
we've even seen podcasts discussing this disappear
joining us for this discussion tonight
from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
we have Senior Public Interest Technologist
Cooper Quinton
and we have Civil Liberties Director and Senior Staff Attorney
David Green
gentlemen, thank you and welcome to Off The Hook
Hi Michael, happy to be here
happy to join you
so this is an incredible story
is it not?
seeing how this has disappeared
how this original writer's story
which was very thoroughly researched, 21 pages long
were part of the investigation
what does it tell you? What is going on here?
how does a court in India have the power to shut this down globally?
so the court in India issued a judgment
issued an order that ordered Reuters to take the story down
it actually also
it also indicated that it had reached agreement
with Google to de-index
to de-index the story
so actually Reuters, and that's disturbing
we don't like foreign courts telling
making it difficult for us not in that country
to read stuff
but Reuters does have to comply with the Indian court order
for better or for worse
what I think is really shocking and really disturbing
is how others are using that Indian court order
has to take down
everything they've written and said about the story
even though the Indian court order doesn't say that
in any way at all
it only says Reuters has to take it down
and whatever Google is going to do
I don't know if there are other ways Reuters could have complied
with the order
but that case is still ongoing
so hopefully at some point they'll be able to republish the story
so who is it
who is going beyond what the Indian court
initially was ordering
there's an entity called
the Association of Appen Training Centers
that is apparently
a group of
people who are associated with Appen
who use the Appen techniques and continue to train people
and again
the corporate structure of this whole thing
is really confusing
because it's unclear
who uses the Appen name
who's authorized to use it
if there's a former Appen entity that doesn't exist anymore
that says that they still
use the Appen name for training purposes
and their director
is the one who brought this action
in Indian courts
in the New Delhi court
against first Reuters
they've also since brought one against the New Yorker as well
and what they've done since they got this Indian court judgment
they've been sending emails
to lots of people who have
written about this or either republished the Reuters article
or digested it or talked about it
and first
asking them to help remove this information
but then they also
to some people represent that the Indian court order found
that the article was defamatory which it didn't
that they'd be in contempt of court if they did not remove
their articles
and again, that's not true
but it was effective because apparently a lot of people were intimidated
or a lot of organizations were intimidated by that language
yeah, it's not unusual
if you're just a publisher and you get something
from someone telling you there's an Indian court order
saying you have to take something down
you either have to spend a lot of time and a lot of money
looking into it and seeing if that's actually the case
or just to take it down
and it's obviously much easier just to do the latter
Cooper, your thoughts?
yeah, I mean it has been really effective
unfortunately over 20 stories have been taken down
as of this time
and you know
how easy it is to intimidate people
by just even the presence of a lawyer
for better or for worse
well we've got a bunch of them on the show right now
so I'm not sure we're going to be intimidated by this
and of course reading the story I guess
is kind of similar to publishing the story
although I couldn't read all 21 pages on the air
but this is
we've seen many instances in the past
where people have taken offense or companies have taken offense
at the way they've been portrayed in a story
and the normal reaction is to
counter with facts, with evidence
and in extreme cases
bring some kind of a lawsuit against the reporting entity
if you feel that they have gotten key facts wrong
or they're defaming
what do you suppose it is about this
that made this case evolve differently?
yeah, well they did sue Reuters
so they went that far
and it's going to be a lot of trouble
for them to try and sue other people
so they sue Reuters
and I think they're just trying to get
as much out of the interim court judgment
in that case as they possibly can
before they have to go through the time and expense of filing a lawsuit
they did sue the New Yorker
unlike Reuters, the New Yorker doesn't do business in India
and the court there said that
it could not order the New Yorker
because it didn't have the ability to order a non-Indian entity
to depublish it
to take down its article
so that might have indicated to them the limit
of who they can try and drag into
Indian courts
but it's a fairly effective technique
it's actually not that uncommon
for people to get judgments in foreign courts
and then to wave those around
and say, look, there's a court telling you
to depublish what you wrote
go ahead
and the sort of
and David can speak more to this
but the sort of exploit that they've used in this case
is that the Indian courts
apparently in libel cases
tend to order the content taken down right away
until the lawsuit is settled
and in the case of the Indian court
they're able to instantly take down the content
which achieves their goals
and they're able to tie this up for years
until everybody's sort of forgotten about the story and moved on
so it's really sort of
they're taking advantage of an exploit in the Indian legal system
which happens to be where they're located
but it makes it far more advantageous for them
and they have the ability to make that
a global action?
I'm not a lawyer
David is the lawyer
but no
we argue that no, in fact, that they do not
it's not a global takedown
what they said in some of their emails
was they tried to represent it as such
and someone getting that email
they could try and hire a lawyer in India
if they really want to look into it
or they can take the story down
not everyone has taken things down
but certainly lots of the reporting has been
so if Reuters had kept the story up
even if it was only directed at an audience in the United States
they would still be held liable?
Reuters is a global
news company
it does business all over the world
Reuters
is subject to
Indian courts jurisdiction
so whether
the Indian court could have decided
instead of what it did to only limit
their publication in India
or in .in domains
Reuters .in
the Indian court might have been able to do that
but that's not what it did
that would require someone with expertise
in how Indian courts work to answer
but that's not what the court did
they ordered them to take it down
it has to comply
Alex is our lawyer here on off the hook
I know you have some input for this
it's great to have you back David
and great to be in touch
this is Alex
that also sends the EFF the DNS data
every day
good to hear from you again
Alex I think you hit a button
because now you're not making any noise
I did hit a button, you're right
what a small world indeed
great to have you both back
David's expertise on this
being a preeminent First Amendment scholar
is so important to how we interpret this
I also think it's important to remember
what Appen did here through their lawyers
is essentially a social engineering attack
they took something, they misinterpreted it
and they are using psychological pressure points
in other legal departments around the world
to force these companies into compliance
because legal departments around the world
as David noted, we are very risk averse
as a profession
we're going to try to comply to the lowest common denominator
and we don't want to get the company in trouble
so our recommendation generally is going to be to comply with whatever the court's order is
and in my experience
and I think Cooper may have insinuated this too
but in India things can be pretty extreme
and in my experience especially with intellectual property matters
and trademark filings in India
you really have to watch what goes into the pleadings
because sometimes Indian counsel will put in some really inflammatory
or highly hyperbolic language
and then the input essentially becomes the output
and so you could come out
with a judgment from an Indian court
that sounds quite far reaching but really isn't
and I think that media organizations need to stop
the default posture of being
comply with whatever the court order is
for this very example
because other companies are going to weaponize
that automatic default nature of reaction
of complying with whatever the court order is
I think that we need to make much more noise about this particular story
because it is so incredibly important
and if I recall correctly
the reporter who originally broke this story
was Rafael Sater at Reuters
and he's been on this show numerous times as well
I did not know that, what a small world this is
that is incredible
the other thing that's really a very small world here
and I'll mention this to you guys
and we can talk about it more offline
but this is such an important story I think for the EFF as well
because if you look at the history
of the Appen Technology Center
what it was before that, it was Beltrox
and Beltrox was this essentially
hacker for hire outfit that was running roughshod
all throughout, I think from about
2015 onwards
but you can connect the dots
after Appen is my understanding
they were Appen alumni
that might be right
and then I think you have this Appen Technology Center
that's trying to enforce this judgment around the world
so maybe it's kind of going full circle
the Appen name has been passed around a lot for sure
and Cooper you may know more about this
but if you go back and you look at the Beltrox data
and I have a lot of data that is a separate branch of this
a separate branch of what I believe are Beltrox related attacks
but they all relate to a threat
well not all of them but a good number of those earlier attacks
relate to a threat actor
that was associated with the name Amanda Lovers
and Amanda Lovers was also
associated with attacks on the EFF
quite a few years ago
we actually wrote a story about this
the future story
so it really is a much smaller world
it goes really kind of full circle here
because if we can't get the word out about
this type of threat intelligence and this type of data
then it's harming
I think worldwide and global cyber security efforts as well
it's not just about reporting it's about security
and on that note we're talking about something that came out of a court
in I believe New Delhi in India
what if the court was in Moscow, what if the court was in Beijing
what if the court was in one of the so called adversaries
of the United States
and there was a story reporting on hacking attempts
or something else coming from one of those nations
and they took exception to it and said no we're going to file suit against you
would we find ourselves
shutting it down because of what they say
or is there something different about an Indian court
this phenomenon where people get foreign court judgments
and then wave them around and say everyone in the world has to take things down
actually happens far too frequently
in the libel area there's a term for it
which is libel tourism
which means you file your lawsuit
in the most libel friendly jurisdiction in the world
which right now is probably Australia
and you get a judgment there
and some courts will even do things like order people
who they have no jurisdiction over
the takedowns are rare
but they might have monetary judgments
against people and then your choice is to defend a lawsuit
if you're the one sued
whether you want to defend a lawsuit in Australia
or take a default judgment
you just ignore it
the U.S. actually passed a law
specifically to address this
called the speech act
and what that law says is that if someone obtains
a foreign court judgment in a defamation case
that judgment is not enforceable
in U.S. courts
if they would not have won the case
under U.S. law
if someone has first amendment defenses
or statutory defenses or even state constitutional defenses
that would have immunized them
then the foreign judgment cannot be enforced against them
in U.S. courts
now it means that person can't go to the foreign country
because then it might be able to be enforced against them
but it was such a big phenomenon that congress actually
passed a law to address it
so that doesn't apply in this case?
it does apply
that law is really designed for monetary judgments
because the court systems that will issue
take order things to be depublished
that's actually quite unusual
from what I've heard from lawyers in India
it's routine in India
especially for a country that has a legal system
founded on English commonwealth law
as India does
so the speech act is really more designed
for monetary judgments
that being said, if they really try to enforce
the speech act against someone
if they try to enforce it in U.S. courts
if they try to enforce the Indian court order
in U.S. courts, I do believe the speech act
would be one of the many defenses that someone would have
I wanted to put myself in Roy's chair for a minute
I think that their concern is probably
that if they try any sort of
legal cuteness by leaving it up in the U.S.
or leaving it up in other countries
that they expose their employees in India to risk
I can understand why they're taking the most broad stance
because they have a lot of employees in India that they don't want to put at risk
and in fact, Rafael Sater, who we mentioned earlier
one of the authors of the original story
he had Indian citizenship by marriage
since this story came out, he's had that Indian citizenship revoked
by the Indian court
pretty clearly because of this story
so the sort of
the effects aren't without
the concerns aren't without merit
there's definitely already some blowback against the journalists who reported this
that's kind of disturbing to hear
because my understanding is there's a criminal complaint
in India's central bureau investigation
against Kher
the guy from Appen Technology
that is publicly available
that can be seen
despite that, the story was ordered to be taken down
but it's still under investigation
how does the Indian court justify taking away someone's citizenship
when they're complying with the court order in the first place
my understanding, and David can probably correct me on this
is that the Indian court decided that he
I think that somebody filed
basically he has the equivalent
of an Indian green card
and that he was besmirching the good name
of India by writing these stories
and so that was grounds to revoke the citizenship
I don't know if David can correct that
I don't know anything about this
India has this special citizenship
for people who don't reside in India
and I don't know anything about what qualifies
or how you get it revoked
but I do know that in the Association of Appen Training Centers
complaint against Reuters
what the claims they make
is that this story
even though it defames Appen
it actually does damage to all the people of India
because Appen has trained so many
so many people in India
that its harm is so widespread
they are really casting this as about
harming the whole populace and not just this company
so in their eyes
Appen is beyond any kind of critique or investigation
anyone who does that is an enemy of the state of India
India is a democracy
or at least they were last time I checked
I don't think there is any kind of action taken against
someone trying to get to the truth
yeah
it is
and I do think
the Indian court order is an interim order
so by its terms it is saying that we are not making a finding
all we have found is that
the plaintiffs
Pandy who represents the Association of Appen Training Centers
all he says is that he has stated claims
that if he can prove are true
that that could be a successful lawsuit
and that is enough under Indian law
to get an interim take down order
so the court says that
this is not a final order
Reuters has not submitted its evidence yet
and so this is no final decision
about whether the article is defamatory
but it is just what they call a prima facie
that they have made a prima facie case
that is enough to move forward
and get this temporary take down order
one of the reasons we are citing
that Reuters is complying
is because they do business in India
let's say this was a situation
where it was an organization that did not do business in India
they solely did business here in the United States
they were a small publisher
and they printed a story like this
and they put it online
but they put it online in the cloud
and they used Amazon
and while they don't do business in India
I'm not sure that a small publisher in the United States
would be playing by Amazon's rules
I don't want to give them any ideas
it certainly is
and I don't know how
we don't know everything they have done
and what they have pursued
I don't want to be too critical
of people who have decided
to take this down
rather than incur the expense of hiring a lawyer
to try and figure it out
everyone makes their own risk assessment
I offer thanks
to those who have decided to keep it up
who are brave enough
to weather legal risks
but it's a tough thing
to get someone just asserting these things
and one of the reasons
that we
I guess we can get into this
what we've done in terms of
responding to these emails on behalf of
two publications
was really to help try to embolden others
who may have received the same emails
if they wanted to make the decision
to not take their reporting down
I guess we should also discuss
to a degree what's known as SLAPP lawsuits
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
which basically is using
an expensive legal claim against someone
who, as you say, does not want to spend
enormous amounts of time and money on a lawsuit
there are some states here in this country
who have
laws against SLAPP lawsuits
can you tell us something about that?
Sure, yeah, so a SLAPP
it's an acronym, Strategic Allegation Against Public Participation
and these are typically meritless lawsuits
so the idea about a SLAPP is you have a lawsuit
it's not going to win, but merely by filing against somebody
and burdening them with the expense
the time and the money of having to defend it
you can get what you want, which is typically that they'll shut up
they'll either depublish what they publish
they'll agree not to speak anymore
and again, it's not just about writing
I've seen them file against people who are protesting
it's really just to get people to stop
exercising their First Amendment rights, whether by speaking
or writing or protesting
and this is taking advantage of the fact that
even if you have really worthy defenses
in the US legal system, it can still be really difficult
to assert them
and so what
anti-SLAPP laws do
is try to create a procedure
to try and get rid of these lawsuits really quickly
and create some disincentives for those who file them
they do this in two ways
these laws vary by state
but most of them have some procedure where the court will
very early on look at the merits of the case
and decide whether this is a case that has even minimal merit
and then if it doesn't, they can dismiss the case
and typically they also
have some provisions
for reversing attorney's fees
so that if you successfully
get a SLAPP lawsuit dismissed
then the other side, those who filed the lawsuit
would have to pay your lawyer's fees
and so that's again to both
disincentivize filing them as well as
make it easier for people who get sued
to get lawyers
but this is not the case in all states, correct?
it's not the case in all states
and it's not the case in all countries
so there's not one of these in
there's not one of these in India
and we do see SLAPPs, it's not just a US phenomenon
it happens all over, there was sort of a famous one
in Malta not too long ago
Greenpeace has been SLAPPed
in 12 different countries
around the world
we do see these
it's unfortunately
a very common phenomenon
not every state has this protection
if you are sued in US courts
I think maybe 38 states do
Jason Kelly
a fellow EFF employee
and also writes for 2600
mentioned the Greenpeace
lawsuit in the next issues column
basically they were being sued by
a company called Resolute Forest Products
simply because they had blog posts
saying such things as
their logging was bad news for the climate
and these SLAPP lawsuits can be
ways of really quelling speech
and making it so it's almost impossible to
criticize or say anything that could be
seen as negative about a powerful entity
yeah
that's a really common application
of SLAPPs
they get publicly criticized
people making comments
in public meetings
and things like that
and so they sue them to get them to
shut up
Greenpeace ended up winning
getting that case dismissed
and there was a very large attorneys fees award
and they have had to go through the whole thing
to begin with
and as you might imagine
it's a lot more
for a big organization like Greenpeace
they have a lot more funds, they have a lot more lawyers
they have a lot more appetite to fight this sort of thing
but for a small environmental group
or a grassroots organization
they don't have the backing or funding to really even fight something like this
so it's a lot more effective against smaller organizations
against grassroots organizations
and I want to really quickly shout out the work of another non-profit
the Civil Liberties Defense Center
up in the Pacific Northwest
they've been working for years helping small organizations
environmental organizations fight these SLAPP lawsuits
they're a great resource for this sort of thing
I would emphasize that
not only in the case that someone would be able to
if they were a small entity
to fight it
but thereafter the lasting effects of the
overall intimidation of what
might be around the next corner constantly
and how that affects their operations
after the
positive outcome or the ability
if they're able to, to get past it
it just hangs over smaller organizations in ways that
a really large entity might even just
have institutional memory loss over it
but it could really harm something that's
really on a shoestring or otherwise
would cave to the kind of
pressure that they'd have to face
changing their habits or otherwise
their overall mission
Any other comments from people out in
Skype land? Rob? Gila? Alex?
Yeah sure, I'll jump in
and say I think we should talk a little bit
about the blowback here
in the Appen case and what people
like Distributed Denial of Secrets and others are doing
in order to fight this type of activity
you know, in law we have
something called the Streisand effect
which was filing a lawsuit essentially to
stop attention from going to one
particular object but then you wind up filing this lawsuit
that gets a lot of attention and the whole thing blows up in your face
and I think that the
actions of a few media outlets
that have not taken this down and I think David alluded to
those brave outlets earlier but I think
it's really admirable and I think that what we're doing here
and talking about this tonight is really important too because
the more we bring attention to this type of activity
the less likely it's going to be successful
again in the future and I really think
that we need to be able to
number one, train lawyers and legal departments to
not necessarily kowtow
to the whims of all of these courts
some of whose public policies may not comport at all
with our traditional notions of fairness and due process
I think we should view with skepticism
these types of judgments and I think that
when it comes to news organizations as well, I think we're right
to expect that they should fight for our First Amendment freedoms
because their bottom line depends on it
number one and the other aspect of this is
this affects all of us
we're talking about First Amendment freedoms on the same day
that Julian Assange had his
last high court appearance trying to contest
extradition to the United States and I think
we're seeing the press being attacked
on many, many different fronts right now
and this one that involves a, I think, coordinated
misinterpretation and manipulation
of the legal system is particularly dangerous as well
Speaking of small worlds, so the term
strife and effects was actually coined by
Mike Masnick, who's the publisher of
Tector, which is one of the two organizations that
EFF is supporting
and we've written, them and
MuckRock are two of the organizations that have received
the letters from the Association of App and Training Centers asking them to
take down their content and EFF
is representing both of those organizations
in responding to those letters and asserting that
there is no legal basis for this takedown
but the strife and effect is absolutely right
it's an interesting nexus there too, but I think that
with this sort of tactic that's being taken
in the courts by the Association of App and Training Centers
the strife and effect is exactly
our best tactic here, right, the more
that, because they want to silence this story, right, they want this story to go
away, they want the reputation of
Appen and Carre to be spotless, right
and the more that we can talk about
this story, the more that we can talk about the
really visceral reaction to this story by these organizations
the more that this spreads, the less
effective their tactics are, even if the Reuters story
officially stays down, right, you can still read it
on Distributed Denial of Secrets
and shout out to them for their amazing work
and you can still read about it on places like MuckRock
and TechDirt and the EFF website and here
you can hear about it here on the radio
and yeah, the strife and effect is a fantastic
pushback to this. Absolutely, and Cooper, it's interesting because
just as you were saying that, I was pulling up the story on TechDirt
and I really recommend people read this, it's entitled
Sorry Appen, we're not taking down our article about your attempts
to silence reporters, and I just think that's brilliant
we need more of that, and of course
you folks at EFF are a major part of that, I don't know what
we would do without you. We're in the closing
minute, but is there something that people can
do to get more information, stay involved
or help out?
Well, keep on reading the stories
I'll give you what more information there is
Mike Mazik at TechDirt has written about it a few times
MuckRock, which was actually
they got the nasty email
from Association of Appen Training Centers because
of their document cloud service, which Reuters used to
actually host some of the documents
but they've also written about it
and even Wired
magazine had a story recently, they've actually just
gotten a letter, a takedown demand
from CARES, US lawyers, threatening
to sue them in US courts, so it'll be interesting
to see how that plays out
Well, I just wonder what we're going to get, because we read part of the story
and we talked about this for an hour, and we're going to continue talking
about this on Overtime, which starts at 8 o'clock on YouTube
just go to the link on 2600.com on the main page
or simply go to channel 2600
on YouTube
In the few seconds we have left, what do you anticipate
happening next, what is the next
step in all of this?
Well, in our letter, in our email back to Appen
Training Centers, we said, here's why we think
you're misleading people, that the Indian
Court judgment, it's not a judgment, it didn't make any
final determination, that it was defamatory
that even if it did, it only applies to Reuters
and Google and no one else, and even if it did apply them, it's not
enforceable to US courts, and we said, you know, if you
disagree with any of this, please let us know, and we haven't heard
back from them, I don't expect to ever
hear back from them, but
if we do, we'll let you all know
but it will be interesting to see whether
Carre's US lawyers actually file any actions
in US courts
on his behalf. We've been talking with David Green,
Civil Liberties Director and Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, as well as Cooper Quinton, Senior Public
Service Technologist at EFF, and hopefully
the both of you can join us on Overtime at 8 o'clock.
As promised, I will be asking people again
at WBAI to support WBAI
by calling 212-209-2950
or going to givetowbai.org
We have defended freedom of speech
from our beginning back in 1960, and we
always will. I don't think there's a single radio station
anywhere in New York City on any of the frequencies,
AM or FM, that would dare to have an hour-long conversation
about this kind of thing, where
anyone who talks about it is targeted
by powerful entities. That is our promise to you,
our listeners, that we will always be here to do this,
to stand up for your freedom of speech, for freedom of speech
globally, and that we will continue to inform
and speak out
when necessary. Alright, we are off next week,
but you can write to us, othat2600.com
and again, we will be
on Overtime at 8 o'clock on YouTube,
and we'll see you again on WBAI in two weeks.
Good night.
OLE OLE OLE OLE
SHTUT DOMA MAMAE
SOLDAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE
NAZAT ROSSIYA
NAZAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE
SHTUT DOMA MAMAE
SOLDAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE
NAZAT ROSSIYA
NAZAT
ROSSIYA
ROSSIYA
ROSSIYA
ROSSIYA
OLE OLE OLE OLE
SHTUT DOMA MAMAE
SOLDAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE
NAZAT ROSSIYA
NAZAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE
SHTUT DOMA ZHONTE
SOLDAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE
NAZAT ROSSIYA
NAZAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE
SHTUT DOMA ZHONTE
SOLDAT
OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE
Back, Russia! Back!
Russia! Russia!
Russia! Russia!
Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!
The soldiers are waiting for you there!
Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!
Back, Russia! Back!
Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!
The soldiers are waiting for you there!
Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!
The soldiers are waiting for you there!
Russia! Russia!
Russia! Russia!
Back! Let's go!
Back! Let's go!
Back! Let's go!
Let's go!
Russia! Russia!
This is Ralph Pointer. Join me and others every Wednesday, 8 to 9 p.m. Eastern Time
on WBAI 99.5 on your radio. It would appear the human movement is such that at any moment
in history, there are too few that understand possibilities of existence that would benefit
all who inhabit this planet and are willing to act on this understanding. This program
will feature that few. What are your views on these issues that impact your life today?
What are your views on America today? What are your views on America's future? Can we
talk? Call in 212-209-2877. Wednesday, 8 to 9 p.m. on WBAI 99.5 on your radio.