10 ms·

Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

135 points by hukl 12y ago

eik3_de 12y ago
From the ccc website[1]: > Donations > We gladly accept any donation, even considerable sums. Bank account of the CCC e. V.: Chaos Computer Club e. V. IBAN DE41 2001 0020 0599 0902 01 BIC PBNKDEFF [1] http://www.ccc.de/en/membership http://www.ccc.de/en/membership
- cyphunk 12y ago
  A worthy cause. Also see this page for places to donate to Snowdens defense. https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden (scroll down to Other options) Location for Chelsea Mannings defense/appeal fund: http://couragetoresist.org/2010/09/chelsea-manning-defense-fund/ http://couragetoresist.org/2010/09/chelsea-manning-defense-f...
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    Does that imply that Snowden has some intention of returning to the US and facing trial? Everything I've read from him indicates he doesn't plan on it. If so, what's the purpose of donating to fund his legal defense?
    - cyphunk 12y ago
      true. could also donate just as a sort of "hey thanks"
sneak 12y ago
Presumably, this now means anyone providing significant material support to the CCC can find themselves on the US's shitlist, no?
- lawl 12y ago
  I think this has always been the case.
- Argorak 12y ago
  CCC has loose ties to the Wau Holland Foundation(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau_Holland_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau_Holland_Foundation), which collected considerable sums for Wikileaks and often collaborates with the CCC. I think they've already given enough reasons to be on the shitlist. (Wau Holland co-founded the CCC) edit: made it clear that by "collaborate with", I mean the CC and not Wikileaks.
kbenson 12y ago
I had to look up Chelsea Manning. I was aware from the news that Bradley Manning had issues with gender, but wasn't aware he had changed his gender association. What's considered the current best way to describe this, that Bradley Manning released the documents (past tense) and now Chelsea Manning needs support (present tense), or that Chelsea Manning released documents and now needs support? The first way feels like it's more useful for expressing the situation to those that lived through it, but may be ignoring the identity of the person in question. Referring to the person through the later moniker in all instances may be confusing to those that miss the change as it happens, but may be less confusing to future generations. I guess this isn't new though, we have Cassius Clay / Muhammad Ali.
- yanowitz 12y ago
  This is also a solved problem (largely) around trans issues specifically. I suggest reading http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender for more context. In particular, you should refer to Chelsea as she would want -- with her current name and her expressed gender pronoun preference (e.g., use 'her' where you use 'his' above). Also, "gender association" is not a common formulation. In terms of capturing the nuance of acts prior to public transitioning, the above link has some suggestions: Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition. Ideally a story will not use pronouns associated with a person's birth sex when referring to the person's life prior to transition. Try to write transgender people's stories from the present day, instead of narrating them from some point in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community? I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that confusion isn't addressed promptly and often). I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
ameister14 12y ago
I don't really understand supporting Chelsea Manning, or equating her plight with Snowden's. Snowden had a purpose and a plan, and executed it while attempting to keep people from getting hurt. Chelsea Manning lashed out at an army that didn't support her and put her in the wrong position. The military may have mistreated her, but they're still not the same thing.
- lispm 12y ago
  What actually did the 'army' do in Iraq? Thinking a bit about that might help you to understand what Manning did and why...
  - ameister14 12y ago
    Why would you put army in quotes? It's really an army, so that doesn't make sense. Chelsea Manning was a confused person when she released the documents. She felt isolated from the people around her and searched for inclusion elsewhere. She developed a friendly relationship with Wikileaks personnel, and sent them hundreds of thousands of random documents. Later, she sent the helicopter video and hundreds of thousands more random documents. That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing. That's a person unhappy with where they are lashing out and in the process occasionally hitting the mark. The military subsequently mistreated her, and she should never have been in the position to do this in the first place. She ended up telling people that she was the one who leaked all the documents, when she didn't have to say anything at all. That doesn't make her a crusader or hero. Snowden, on the other hand, was valued and paid well, and sacrificed that. He specifically targeted information that he believed was unconscionable and unconstitutional, and was careful about who he trusted with it and what he released. He had a well-articulated and thought-through purpose and has effected change through it.
    - lispm 12y ago
      Manning did a great services to mankind to expose actions of the US military in Iraq and related. The US invasion in Iraq was based on lies and caused death, destruction, violence, torture, etc. for many humans. Manning helped to expose some of these actions. > That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing. Yeah, she should have done it in some more orderly way. WTF?
kghose 12y ago
Do they support Pussy Riot and the Falung Gong? Or are they only interested in folks who reveal US secrets and work against the US government?
- harry8 12y ago
  The organisation you are looking for is Amnesty International. The Chaos Computer Club's focus should be obvious from their name. I don't recall Pussy Riot or Falung Gong revealing government secrets and blowing the whistle on unalawful behaviour generally involving computers. Many people who are critical of aspects of US policy and institutional behaviour grew up looking at the US as a shining light of freedom and justice in opposition to the evil that was the USSR. Not everything is an anti-us conspiracy, perhaps the required eternal vigilance hasn't been quite vigilant enough and now we know? Perhaps it is starting to be properly vigilant again and the USA's greatness will re-assert itself just as some patriotic American heroes did previously against the likes of McCarthy? Anyway here is the wikipedia page for the CCC with whom I happen to have absolutely zero association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club Give it a cursory glance and decide for yourself if this group is focused on being "anti-american"

135 points by hukl 12y ago

From the ccc website[1]: > Donations > We gladly accept any donation, even considerable sums. Bank account of the CCC e. V.: Chaos Computer Club e. V. IBAN DE41 2001 0020 0599 0902 01 BIC PBNKDEFF [1] http://www.ccc.de/en/membership http://www.ccc.de/en/membership

cyphunk 12y ago
A worthy cause. Also see this page for places to donate to Snowdens defense. https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden (scroll down to Other options) Location for Chelsea Mannings defense/appeal fund: http://couragetoresist.org/2010/09/chelsea-manning-defense-fund/ http://couragetoresist.org/2010/09/chelsea-manning-defense-f...
- csandreasen 12y ago
  Does that imply that Snowden has some intention of returning to the US and facing trial? Everything I've read from him indicates he doesn't plan on it. If so, what's the purpose of donating to fund his legal defense?
  - cyphunk 12y ago
    true. could also donate just as a sort of "hey thanks"

sneak 12y ago

Presumably, this now means anyone providing significant material support to the CCC can find themselves on the US's shitlist, no?

lawl 12y ago
I think this has always been the case.
Argorak 12y ago
CCC has loose ties to the Wau Holland Foundation(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau_Holland_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau_Holland_Foundation), which collected considerable sums for Wikileaks and often collaborates with the CCC. I think they've already given enough reasons to be on the shitlist. (Wau Holland co-founded the CCC) edit: made it clear that by "collaborate with", I mean the CC and not Wikileaks.

kbenson 12y ago

I had to look up Chelsea Manning. I was aware from the news that Bradley Manning had issues with gender, but wasn't aware he had changed his gender association. What's considered the current best way to describe this, that Bradley Manning released the documents (past tense) and now Chelsea Manning needs support (present tense), or that Chelsea Manning released documents and now needs support? The first way feels like it's more useful for expressing the situation to those that lived through it, but may be ignoring the identity of the person in question. Referring to the person through the later moniker in all instances may be confusing to those that miss the change as it happens, but may be less confusing to future generations. I guess this isn't new though, we have Cassius Clay / Muhammad Ali.

yanowitz 12y ago
This is also a solved problem (largely) around trans issues specifically. I suggest reading http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender for more context. In particular, you should refer to Chelsea as she would want -- with her current name and her expressed gender pronoun preference (e.g., use 'her' where you use 'his' above). Also, "gender association" is not a common formulation. In terms of capturing the nuance of acts prior to public transitioning, the above link has some suggestions: Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition. Ideally a story will not use pronouns associated with a person's birth sex when referring to the person's life prior to transition. Try to write transgender people's stories from the present day, instead of narrating them from some point in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns.
- kbenson 12y ago
  Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community? I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that confusion isn't addressed promptly and often). I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.

ameister14 12y ago

I don't really understand supporting Chelsea Manning, or equating her plight with Snowden's. Snowden had a purpose and a plan, and executed it while attempting to keep people from getting hurt. Chelsea Manning lashed out at an army that didn't support her and put her in the wrong position. The military may have mistreated her, but they're still not the same thing.

lispm 12y ago
What actually did the 'army' do in Iraq? Thinking a bit about that might help you to understand what Manning did and why...
- ameister14 12y ago
  Why would you put army in quotes? It's really an army, so that doesn't make sense. Chelsea Manning was a confused person when she released the documents. She felt isolated from the people around her and searched for inclusion elsewhere. She developed a friendly relationship with Wikileaks personnel, and sent them hundreds of thousands of random documents. Later, she sent the helicopter video and hundreds of thousands more random documents. That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing. That's a person unhappy with where they are lashing out and in the process occasionally hitting the mark. The military subsequently mistreated her, and she should never have been in the position to do this in the first place. She ended up telling people that she was the one who leaked all the documents, when she didn't have to say anything at all. That doesn't make her a crusader or hero. Snowden, on the other hand, was valued and paid well, and sacrificed that. He specifically targeted information that he believed was unconscionable and unconstitutional, and was careful about who he trusted with it and what he released. He had a well-articulated and thought-through purpose and has effected change through it.
  - lispm 12y ago
    Manning did a great services to mankind to expose actions of the US military in Iraq and related. The US invasion in Iraq was based on lies and caused death, destruction, violence, torture, etc. for many humans. Manning helped to expose some of these actions. > That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing. Yeah, she should have done it in some more orderly way. WTF?

kghose 12y ago

Do they support Pussy Riot and the Falung Gong? Or are they only interested in folks who reveal US secrets and work against the US government?

harry8 12y ago
The organisation you are looking for is Amnesty International. The Chaos Computer Club's focus should be obvious from their name. I don't recall Pussy Riot or Falung Gong revealing government secrets and blowing the whistle on unalawful behaviour generally involving computers. Many people who are critical of aspects of US policy and institutional behaviour grew up looking at the US as a shining light of freedom and justice in opposition to the evil that was the USSR. Not everything is an anti-us conspiracy, perhaps the required eternal vigilance hasn't been quite vigilant enough and now we know? Perhaps it is starting to be properly vigilant again and the USA's greatness will re-assert itself just as some patriotic American heroes did previously against the likes of McCarthy? Anyway here is the wikipedia page for the CCC with whom I happen to have absolutely zero association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club Give it a cursory glance and decide for yourself if this group is focused on being "anti-american"