27 June 2010. Updated.

26 June 2010

Wikileaks Interviews

Interviews of Cryptome about Wikileaks have been conducted then not used by:

The New York Times (Noam Cohen)
The Financial Times (Joseph Menn)
The Washington Post (Joby Warrick)
Le Presse Montreal (Richard Hetu)
Mother Jones (Evan James)
ABC TV Australia (Elmo Keep)
Investor's Business Daily (Sheila Riley)
Others who asked not to be named

The latest interview:

Date: 23 Jun 2010
From: Walshingham2000 <pgpboard[at]gmail.com>
To: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
CC: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Julian Assange

On 23/06/2010 16:48, Stefania Maurizi wrote:

> Dear Wikileaks Insider,
>
> I am an Italian journalist writing a profile about Julian Assange and
> its Wikileaks.
>
> I have read your letters attacking Wikileaks founder.
>
> What's the problem with Julian Assange? Is he paranoid? I think he has
> some reasons to be so, don't you think?
>
> He asks for money for his brainchild? It doesn't seems to me that huge
> amount of money are involved here. And certainly you need money to run
> such an initiative. Anyway, you are right that Wikileaks must offer
> great transparency, but probably they need time to fix their
> organisation, don't you think?
>
> If you are really an insider of Wikileaks, why don't you sign openly
> your criticism to Wikileaks founder?
>
> Stefania Maurizi
>

Dear Stefania,

We are not the source of the Wikileaks Insider messages posted at Cryptome. We only forward encrypted traffic to Cryptome. You can verify this statement with John Young at Cryptome.

http://cryptome.org/

PGPBOARD is a messgage forwarding service which was formed in 2003. The primary objective was to move politically sensitive material out of Burma and North Korea. The purpose of PGPBOARD is explained on our webpage.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pgpboard/

All the traffic coming through PGPBOARD is in an encrypted format, we have no idea of content, and we have no interest in publishing any leaked data, and we seek no publicity.. We are only a messenger.

Date: 23 Jun 2010
From: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
Subject: Italian journalist: REQUEST

Dear John Young,

My name is Stefania Maurizi and I am an Italian journalist working for the major Italian newsmagazine L'ESPRESSO, which enjoys a great tradition in investigative journalism.

For some references about me, please check:

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/doppio-gioco/2107798&ref=hpsp

I am trying to understand what WIKILEAKS is exactly. I have gathered different opinions and I am interested in your judgement. Could you please let me know whether we can discuss this? I would be very grateful to you for your collaboration.

Thank you in advance for your reply,

Stefania Maurizi (telephone number deleted by request)
skype: stefy.ma

Il 23/06/2010 23:34, John Young ha scritto:

Dear Stefania Maurizi,

It will be a pleasure to respond to your request. Can it be done by email?

Best regards,

John

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:47:49 +0200
From: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Italian journalist: REQUEST

Dear John,

Thank you very much for your kind collaboration. Can we do it by phone? Sorry, but I need to talk to people in order to properly interview them...It will take just 15 minutes, no futher loss of time for you. If you are willing to talk to me, please let me know the number I should call to reach you. Is it fine for you to have our phone conversation today (Thursday the 24th) at 3 pm New York-time? If not, please suggest a time more convenient.

Thank you very much for your help,

Stefania Maurizi (telephone number deleted by request)

skype: stefy.ma

Date: Thur, 24 Jun 2010
To: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Italian journalist: REQUEST

Dear Stefania,

I welcome your questions by email. A telephone interview is not sufficient to convey my views accurately. I must carefully consider inquiries and provide thoughtful responses.

The over-inflamed Wikileaks controversy and its widespread distortions require that my comments be written due to previously reported misquotes and misattributions based on telephone interviews. A dozen journalists have failed to grasp what I told them: read Cryptome thoroughly to understand Wikileaks and its intentions.

The history of Wikileaks indicates that deception is integral. Recent events have heightened that and put in jeopardy those who have provided information to Wikileaks as well as its supporters.

There is a personal, legal and political risk for being duped in this matter. From my first contact with Wikileaks during its formation, this has been true. You may want to examine that risk in dealing with it.

As far as I can see there is no journalist willing to probe deeply and at length into Wikileaks due to its masterful manipulation of media and its artful concealment of its operation under guise of necessary security. Simply put, Wikileaks behaves like a secret spy operation,

Regards,

John

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:57:38 +0200
From: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Italian journalist: INTERVIEW VIA EMAIL

Dear John,

Thank you. So, let's do our interview via email. Just a request: How can I be sure that it is really you, John Young ( the founder of CRYPTOME ) who is replying to my email? Please let me know how we can deal with this problem.

Below, you can find my questions. I have a tight deadline. I am VERY grateful to you for your collaboration.

Stefania Maurizi (telephone number deleted by request)

QUESTIONS:

1) What makes you to believe that Wikileaks behaves like a secret spy operation? And who would be in charge of this op? The CIA? The Mossad? What are its purposes?

2) Wikileaks did leak documents concerning the U.S., Britain, Israel, Germany , prominent banks like the Julius Baer Bank, etc. So it doesn't seem to me that Wikileaks is supporting any country, don't you think so?

3) Even people like Daniel Ellsberg, the famous leaker of the 'Pentagon Papers', was skeptical about Wikileaks, at the beginning. However, yesterday I had an interview with him and he told me that Wikileaks is doing a good job and he overcame the doubts he had at the beginning. Don't you think that leaks such as the "Collateral Murder" video are great stuff?

4) You write that recent events indicates that deception is integral. What do you mean exactly?

5) You write that recent events have put in jeopardy those who have provided information to Wikileaks. HOwever, apart from Bradley Manning, no leakers had troubles due to leaks to Wikileaks and, starting 4 years ago, they leaked hundreds of hot documents, so I think it is a good record. Isn't it?

6) You write: "There is a personal , legal and political risk for being duped in this matter. From my first contact with Wikileaks during its formation, this has been true.". What do you mean exactly?

Date: Thur, 24 Jun 2010
To: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Re: Italian journalist: INTERVIEW VIA EMAIL

Stefania Maurizi: How can I be sure that it is really you, John Young ( the founder of CRYPTOME ) who is replying to my email? Please let me know how we can deal with this problem.

John Young: I have the same concern about you. Forging identities is very easy. The identities and pseudo-identities of Wikileaks is the same problem. Only one person has publicly admitted his possibly true name, Julian Assange, but that has not been independently verified. Only "Assange" stories composed of fragments and unverifiable accounts about him have appeared. This is a hoary practice of spying operations and to be sure a close cousin, celebrity flacking.

Bear in mind that when I say spy, spies and spying, I mean anyone or any organization that operates the way official spies do -- journalists, scholars, researchers, priests, government employees, citizens, businesses, and so on. Official spies operate in conjunction with these others, learn from them, hire them, give contracts to them, exchange favors -- cheat, lie and steal, perhaps murder.

SM: QUESTIONS:

SM: 1) What makes you to believe that Wikileaks behaves like a secret spy operation? And who would be in charge of this op? The CIA? The Mossad? What are its purposes?

JY: All of Wikileaks operations are those of secret spying operations. Egotistical, bumbling, lack of transparency, exaggerated assurances of confidentiality, obscurity about internal affairs, unverifiable claims and assertions, asymmetry in protection (always the spy's over the dupes), exaggeration of the importance of information provided, few if any admissions of errors, heroic risks from powerful enemies, and much more. Hyperbolic claims about serving the public and protecting the weak -- as a "news" person you know this well.

SM: 2) Wikileaks did leak documents concerning the U.S., Britain, Israel, Germany , prominent banks like the Julius Baer Bank, etc. So it doesn't seem to me that Wikileaks is supporting any country, don't you think so?

JY: There is no way to tell due to lack of transparency. Spies typically cloak their operations by misleading disclosures. Nationalism is not the issue. The issue is vainglory about information control -- leaks if you will, sometimes called news.

SM: 3) Even people like Daniel Ellsberg, the famous leaker of the 'Pentagon Papers', was skeptical about Wikileaks, at the beginning. However, yesterday I had an interview with him and he told me that Wikileaks is doing a good job and he overcame the doubts he had at the beginning. Don't you think that leaks such as the "Collateral Murder" video are great stuff?

JY: Ellsberg appears to have been duped, either by himself or by others. His fondness for public appearance to recount his personal experience is unsettling. He has repeatedly exaggerated threats to Wikileaks and Assange by invoking his own experience.

The short version of Collateral Murder was a media event. The longer version tells a different story, more nuanced and informative. "Great stuff" is hypebole for the short version. The long version is not great stuff. Wash your mouth.

SM: 4) You write that recent events indicates that deception is integral. What do you mean exactly?

JY: Lack of transparency is deception, secrecy is deception, lack of accountability is deception, misinformation about the operation is deception. Exaggeration is deception. Tweets are deception. Publicity campaigns are deception. Manipulation of the media and the public is deception. Unsupportable promises of protection of those submitting documents is deception. Some analyses of documents have been deceptive. "Wiki" is deception, Wikileaks admits that.

SM: 5) You write that recent events have put in jeopardy those who have provided information to Wikileaks. HOwever, apart from Bradley Manning, no leakers had troubles due to leaks to Wikileaks and, starting 4 years ago, they leaked hundreds of hot documents, so I think it is a good record. Isn't it?

JY: Due to lack of transparency there is no way of knowing who has been exposed, enrapped, extorted, quietened, censored, or worse, only unsupported vainglorious claims have been made. It is common for spies to make such appealing claims to assure participation of sources and agents.

The hundreds of "hot documents" (hyperbole) likely include planted and orchestrated leaks. What is not known is what non-hot but information documents have been ignored for the hot ones, and now the video bombshells.

A technique used to build credibility of a spy-run outlet is seed it with alluring documents. There is no way of knowing where the documents came from. Instead, Wikileaks asserts validation by its own members, all unknown and without public substantiation -- a favorite of spies and cousins, con artists and flacks -- this too you know well.

SM: 6) You write: "There is a personal , legal and political risk for being duped in this matter. From my first contact with Wikileaks during its formation, this has been true.". What do you mean exactly?

JY: Anybody who has willingly linked to Wikileaks by participation or by submission of materials is implicated in what it turns out to be, or is converted into, or changed by desperation, bribes and lure of fame. This can be used to manipulate, extort and threaten by use of supposedly confidential and secret information. This is the basic means to control participants in spying and criminal operations -- suck them in then threaten exposurem a favorite of agents provocateurs and undercover cops and spies.

This is the fault and beauty of secret operations whether used by journos, sex partners, official spies, the lot of those who fear transparency and symmetry, who out of cowardice seek to gain unfair advantage.

You will understand that I do not trust you. First and foremost because you have not done what I said no journalist will do: read Cryptome thoroughly, "don't have time, give me a short answer" and who always have an urgent deadline -- that means you are an idiot charlatan eager  to promote your cartoonish story to peddle your rag's grotesque advertisements.

John

Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:49:15 +0200
From: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Italian journalist: REQUEST

Dear John,

Thank you for your answer.

Frankly speaking, I can't understand your final words:

"You will understand that I do not trust you. First and foremost because you have not done what I said no journalist will do: read Cryptome thoroughly, "don't have time, give me a short answer" and who always have an urgent deadline -- that means you are an idiot charlatan eager to promote your cartoonish story to peddle your rag's grotesque advertisements. "

So, you don't trust me? OK. Here you can find my articles published in the major Italian newsmagazine L'ESPRESSO (which I work for: L'espresso is the most important Italian newsmagazine, enjoying a great tradition in investigative journalism) and my personal website as well:

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/la-terra-trema-gli-stipendi-no/2128980/25

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/i-sottomarini-del-tesoro/2126342

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/pedofilo-seriale/2123761

http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/nel-pantheon-delle-bustarelle/2121816/8

www.stefaniamaurizi.it

Working as a journalist, I have to do with all sorts of people, but not even Italian corrupted politicians close to organised crime treated me as "an idiot charlatan eager to promote your cartoonish story to peddle your rag's grotesque adertisement". I can't understand this offensive language used against a person who is genuinely trying to investigate an issue as honestly as possible,

Stefania Maurizi (telephone number deleted by request)

Date: 25 Jun 2010
To: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Italian journalist: REQUEST

Your shallow views on Wikileaks and Cryptome indicate that you are an uninformed person aiming to write an uninformed report. That is what journalists do but that is not what Wikileaks or Cryptome are doing. You do not appear to know how to do thorough research. I have urged you to read Cryptome and will urge you to read Wikileaks. That will require more time than you, or your newspaper, appear to want to give to it.

This shallowness is what news is, and that is why it, and you, are not trustworthy. Entertaining, eyeball grabbing, yes, but not a source of worthwhile information. The articles you refer to prove that.

You may choose to take offense at this judgment or you may choose to go beyond superficial journalism -- driven by artificial deadlines, budgets and reputation.

What Wikileaks has done lately is choose to become superficial to raise funds, and is now playing the journalism game to fleece and bamboozle the public by braying overmuch about the quality of its product, its reputation, its reliability, its trustworthiness, as you are doing. By doing this Wikileaks, and you, have dimnished your credibility.

I understand that Wikileaks and you are required to do this to earn income. I understand that both of you are required to lie about what you are doing to compete with other liars in the media, in government, in education, in religion, in human affairs.

But not all the time. And you do not have to advocate that others do what you do, as if there is no alternative. Only authoritatives do that to protect their privileges.

At the moment you appear to wish that Cryptome do your bidding. To help you produce the vulgar information called news. Cryptome and as once did Wikileaks, opposes news for its superficiality and complicity with advertising to deceive the public.

It will take you some months to read Wikileaks archive and longer to read Cryptome. Then to ponder what their purpose is. I do not expect you to do that hard work when glibness will get you paid.

A guide: both Wikileaks and Cryptome are about information security, communications security, personal privacy, opposition to asymmetrical authoritatives who want to control information in order to control and manipulate the public. Leaks only occur due to insufficient information security, communications securtiy and personal betrayal.

Where the two sites differ is that Wikileaks has chosen to adopt authoritative methodologies to vaunt and protect its secret operation, probably under the spell of journalism and to take advantage of undue legal protection of journalists.

Cryptome does not hide from scrutiny, invites criticism, warns against trusting it, warns against trusting authoritatives in all guises, does not brag of journalist privileges and protection, does not promise information security, communications security, personal privacy -- that is, it does not lie about these impossible promises as do governments businesses and persons.

John

Date: 25 Jun 2010
From: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Italian journalist: REQUEST

Dear John Young,

you can't afford to treat like this.

I am an investigative journalist who worked on investigations which required me even 9 -10 months. I work conscientiously.

Regards,

Stefania

Date: 26 Jun 2010
To: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Italian journalist: REQUEST

9-10 months is nothing for a serious researcher. Which journalists are not as revealed by the very title: daily, and their braying about deadlines, which are always malleable.

If you wish to have "collaboration," your contemptuous term, you should treat potential collaboraters in a way that encourages provision of information that is thoughtful and substantial not glib and hasty to fit your so-called deadline. Deadlines are a sham used to cover ineptitude.

You cannot get truly valuable information easily, instead you get glibness and shallow commentary like so much of that published about Wikileaks recently and for many years about Cryptome. This shallow "breaking news" about "leaks" diminishes the broader effort of public information initiatives by placing the sales benefits of journalism about that of their subjects who receive nothing but a screw you in thanks.

As you are doing in this exchange. You seem not to understand how insulting your overture to me has been. Or you do and are determined to pretend superority by waving superficial news reports you have done.

For this reason Cryptome publishes interviews such as this to provide the public information on the vanity and duplicity of journalists, writers and researchers who market news reports as if exceptionally valuable goods.

Cryptome does not seek news coverage in the Wikileaks manner. That news coverage is always a "smear published to sell advertising," to quote another writer-cum-journalist.

If you had read Cryptome you would know this.

John

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:06:25 +0200
From: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: Italian journalist: REQUEST

Dear John Young,

This is my last email message to you, as I am tired of your attacks, indeed baseless.

Have you read my investigations? I am 100% sure you have not. You are judging my work just applying your prejudice against journalists and journalism. Do you despise journalism? That's your problem. I am a hard worker and do whatever I can to work conscientiously and honestly. And believe me: 9-10 months of full time investigative work is definitely not "nothing for a serious research", as you write. Maybe you don't understand the difference between journalism and other kind of investigative works, however we are not researchers, we are journalists: if there's a news, a case, a scandal, we had to investigate it in a reasonable timescale. We are not scholars, who can spend years in a case, especially because if we spend years on a issue, often that issue would be of no news value. Do you understand this? We can, of course, spend years investigating issues which are good for a book ( I spent 5 years investigating my last book I am writing), but we cannot spend years for an article: that would be mad, unless you have a scandal which is going to change the story of our planet.

Anyway, I am not supposed to explain my work to you: you are free to despise whatever and whomever you want. While working on this article on Wikileaks, I have tried to talk to dozen of people: ranging from Julian Assange to Steven Aftergood; from Ben Laurie to professor Ross Anderson and his Cambridge computer security lab.

When I learned about your criticism on Wikileaks, I have tried to understand it, as I don't want to write a celebration of Wikileaks: I want to write an article as honest and balanced as possible. This is the reason why I have asked for interviews to people like you and Steven Aftergood, who are very skeptical about Wikileaks. I just gathered insulting statements from you.

Finally: you keep writing that I have not read Cryptome docs about Wikileaks: that's totally false. I read Cryptome on a regular basis, as many Italian journalists do. And I want to tell you that if "the Wikileaks insider" ( I mean the guy who's sending to your Cryptome a bulk of accusations against Julian Assange) really has any serious evidence to support his/her accusations, he/she should go ahead with publishing those evidences. If he /she fails to do so, we journalists have the full right to have doubts on these accusations.

Regards,

Stefania Maurizi

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:29:45 +0200
From: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Italian journalist: our email exchange

Dear John,

there is nothing secret in our email exchange. However, it would have been correct to ask me for permission before publishing our email exchange, especially because there' s my personal mobile phone number in that email exchange... Please find a way to get rid of my mobile number from the published emails: that is a personal information...

Hope you publish also my last email, so that your readership can understand the full story.

In addition, I would have been interested in quoting our interview in my article, but now that it is already available on the web, it doesn't make sense.

stefania

Date: 26 Jun 2010
To: Stefania Maurizi <info[at]stefaniamaurizi.it>
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Italian journalist: our email exchange

You will understand, perhaps, that Cryptome aspires to be a public free library not a commercial news feeder, not a source of titillating leaks -- which are a news invention to exaggerate, lie, cheat and deceive about -- the importance of selected information, speculation, fabrication, adornment and pretentiously infallible editorializing.

This "inside," authorized but not attributed, pompous, vainglorious information packaging follows, works with, mutually supports, the spy-religion model which aims to control the public for ulterior, moneymaking purposes through use of confidentialty, secrecy, privilege and hyperbole about threats and protection, "ignorance" and "enlightenment."

Strip news and leaks (and spying) of their self-promotional hyperbole and therein lies hope for durable understanding against adrenalic rushes of artificial stimulation. You should not need to brag about you and your newspaper's accomplishments. That suggests a dependency upon cosmetics to hide transmittal disease.

John

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010
Subject: Italian Journalist
From: G
To: jya[at]pipeline.com

Just read your email exchange with the Italian journalist.

You really are a prick.

From: J
To: <cryptome[at]earthlink.net>
Subject: About that italian journalist...
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010

John I just read your email exchange with the italian journalist. I am italian so for some reason I feel compelled to write you about it.

It is so obvious since the beginning of the exchange that the most important thing for Maurizi is to get through her task with the least effort possible and according to a devised itinerary ("Don't you think?")

This is not surprising to me since it is well known to those who have eyes in my country that journalism here is ruled by nepotism and certainly not the desire to seek the truth. All the efforts are consumed by the political battle to ride the right horse in time and stick with the right party, while helping to sell that one more rotten copy.

Unfortunately mainstream reaches the larger public but there are also signs for change because in the end not everyone is a sucker, and naivety is worn out across the generations (although also duly renovated).

"For this reason Cryptome publishes interviews such as this to provide the public information on the vanity and duplicity of journalists, writers and researchers who market news reports as if exceptionally valuable goods."

I loved this. You nailed it.

~Milan, Italy

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010
Subject: Wikileaks exchange with Italian Journalist
From: B
To: jya[at]pipeline.com

Harsh, but true.

Well said.

From: T
To: <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Subject: Comments on Journalists
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010

I really enjoyed your exchange with the Italian journalist, Stefania Maurizi.

Back when I first found the security blueprints for the Port of Tacoma on the internet during the first months of Post-911 paranoia,

I encountered my first journalists and reporters. The real story was the blown security plans, but it quickly morphed into the "he found they said" back and forth of a typical templated news report including video of me looking at a computer screen, denials from authorities, the move along move along nothing happening here blather.

This has continued as I have tried to expose the problems with the Northwest Detention Center. Structural, sociological, environmental and governmental failures have always been whitewashed, broad brushed, and dismissed by the media. However, when something does occur (which it will) and results in a catastrophe, then I am sure I will be trotted out as some kind of prophet and the "journalistic template" will take on a "Black Swanish Theory" dimension.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDbuJtAiABA&feature=player_embedded

I enjoyed your exchange and I'm glad you posted it for those of us that sometimes struggle with answering the question, "Why don't you get this in the paper?" as it provides a good source of information and analysis of why that struggle is vain and unimportant.