Apple Bans WikiLeaks App From App Store

It is a dark day in the world of the technology chic and savvy. Apple has decided to ban the recent WikiLeaks cable viewing iPhone/iPad application. It would appear we have come full circle. The once revolutionary, avante-garde, free-thinking provocateur, breaking the shackles of technological oppression, and everywhere unleashing the forces of creativity, has taken one step closer towards becoming the well-intentioned but oppressive ruling master, benevolently deciding on matters of import on our behalf.

I've come to understand how very dangerous it is for decision-makers at Apple to unilaterally control what is and what is not allowed on the App Store, especially when such apps do not actually infringe upon any of their terms of service. With power comes responsibility. When the decisions of a decision-making authority benevolently affects it's members, all truly benefit. When they do not, everyone suffers.

Until now, one could reasonably argue that banning certain problematic apps (under the rationale of a curated App Store) were for the benefit of all users, and a superior user experience. All well and good. But this latest decision, in relation to the WikiLeaks cable viewing app, clearly shows Apple is now treading in dangerous territory regarding Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

What if I were to release an iPhone app that shows the level of corruption or malfeasance in government, by shining a light on the source of financial contributions of our elected officials? Would Apple ban such an app because a number of powerful but corrupt public servants demanded it, under threat of censure? Precisely which terms of service are being infringed here?

Apple’s official stance on the removal of the WikiLeaks app is that "it violated [their] developer guidelines," according to the New York Times. Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller added that "[a]pps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way," which suggests that the guideline the developer violated wasn’t the initial one cited which related to charitable donations.

In any case, which local laws are being infringed, and which individuals or groups does such an app put in harm's way? The app is a viewer for WikiLeaks-related Twitter feeds and recently released diplomatic cables widely available on the web. That same information is already being published by a number of highly reputable news organizations, including The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais, among others. So what's the real issue here?

Decision makers at Apple appear to be bowing to forces that wish to abridge the First Amendment right of free speech, which is essential to a properly functioning democracy. It is evident that banning the WikiLeaks cable viewing app is likely a result of Apple submitting to government pressure under threat of censure as occurred with Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon, and others. As an Apple user, aficionado, and developer for many years, Apple are perilously close to crossing a line with this recent decision. They risk losing credibility as a pioneering and visionary company that has the interests of it's highly creative, rebellious, and avante-garde user and developer base continuously in sight.

Of course, what I or others think as an individuals is ultimately irrelevant — as it will have essentially no impact on Apple's bottom line. But what enough people think, the power of ideas and information coupled to the power that comes from voting with one's dollar according to one's principles, is another story. When a company makes highly political decisions, they risk alienating large swaths of their customer base who do not share those political views.

When one considers how many creative professionals and open source developers employ the Mac platform as their creative platform of choice, I am sure we will see in due course, that informed, thoughtful, creative, and free-thinking individuals will not accept such policy decisions lightly. The demographics of these peoples, by their very nature, precludes them from being oblivious for very long to transgressions against their Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms — an underlying source of creative endeavour. And when thoughtful creative people lash out, watch out! Hell hath no fury like a creative's scorn. Apple is treading on dangerous ground indeed.

Perhaps the single most important factor that provides Apple some breathing room over such ill-advised policy decisions is the insanely brilliant level of product innovation. Enough for many of its users, and probably employees, to simply turn a blind eye towards the less agreeable aspects of high-level decision making, at least for now. As far as products go, they have the Midas touch. For Apple's sake (and ours) let's hope that level of product innovation continues.

References:

1. Bryan Schuetz, "Why was the WikiLeaks App Pulled from the App Store?" GigaOm
2. Alexia Tsotsis, "Apple Removes WikiLeaks App From App Store," TechCrunch
3. Bianca Bosker, "WikiLeaks App Removed From App Store," Huffington Post
4. Michael Grothaus, "Apple Pulls WikiLeaks App from the App Store," Tuaw
5. Brian Osborne, "Apple Pulls WikiLeaks App from the App Store," Geek.com

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

It has been an interesting week. Beginning with the release of over 250,000 classified and highly sensitive international embassy cables by the news and whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, to the incitement of violence by public figures like Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor, Fox News), Sarah Palin (Former Governor of Alaska, and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate), Mike Huckabee (Former Governor of Arkansas), Tom Flanagan (Political Scientist, University of Calgary), Jonah Goldberg (Journalist, National Review Online), and Jeffrey Kuhner (Journalist, The Washington Times), among many others, calling for the outright assassination of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

It is worth remembering that verbally inciting others to commit violence is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment. In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court held that:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

The same is true under Canadian constitutional law, which is applicable to Tom Flanagan, being a Canadian citizen (and, embarrassingly, a professor of political science at the University of Calgary, and former political aid to Prime Minister Steven Harper). Under Canadian constitutional law:

"Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime]." — s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada

Similarly, most Western democracies have anti-hate and anti-violence legislation built into their articles protecting free speech.

So why are so many prominent media figures going off their moral and legal rockers?

Obviously, Julian Assange, front-man for WikiLeaks, has struck more than a few chords. From the WikiLeaks 'Cablegate' website:

"Wikileaks began on Sunday November 28th publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into US Government foreign activities.

The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February this year, contain confidential communications between 274 embassies in countries throughout the world and the State Department in Washington DC. 15,652 of the cables are classified Secret.

[…]

The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.

It is no secret that there is a great deal of corruption in U.S. politics and foreign policy. The depth, extent, and sheer pervasiveness is what has remained largely a subject of debate, until now.

Many who have attacked Julian Assange, have characterized his activities as irresponsible, reckless, and even criminal, with no regard for individuals being put at risk as a result of the classified documents being distributed and published. Some have said he is compromising national security by revealing classified information to U.S. enemies, calling it 'espionage' or 'treasonous' and also calling for his execution. Still others have questioned his integrity with his alleged use of illegal blackmail to achieve his desired ends, as well as the latest 'sex crime' allegations.

However, before addressing these allegations, it might be worthwhile examining first principles. It would appear that there is a fundamental difference in political philosophy between those individuals who are calling for severe censure of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and those who support the work in it's attempts at making governments more open, honest, transparent, and accountable. It would be helpful to bring some of the underlying guiding principles of WikiLeaks supporters out into public view to arrive at a better understanding of motivation:

1. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." — Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

2. The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

3. A non-interventionist foreign policy as advanced by Thomas Jefferson, extending George Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

4. A firm belief that access to information is at the heart and soul of a well-functioning democracy. Such views have as their support many illustrious figures in American history, in addition to Supreme Court decisions (see below).

"Information is the currency of democracy." — Thomas Jefferson

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." — Patrick Henry

"Nothing so diminishes democracy as secrecy." — Ramsey Clark

"A government by secrecy benefits no one. It injures the people it seeks to serve; it damages its own integrity and operation. It breeds distrust, dampens the fervor of its citizens and mocks their loyalty." — Russell Long

"The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." — John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." — United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978)

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation … is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry." — Gerard LaForest, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, in Dagg vs. Canada (1997)

With regard to these essential guiding principles, it is also worth noting that every elected official and public servant has sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Further, the United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century.

Interestingly, there has been far more war, death, and destruction in the world since the U.S. rejection of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the 20th and 21st centuries. This is certainly not coincidence, as the attention afforded select countries in a climate of foreign interventionism has complex geo-political repercussions that cannot be fathomed by policy makers: the sheer volume and intricate nature of interactions and relationships are far too complex to fully comprehend. One need only examine the seemingly endless history of botched U.S. involvement in 20th and 21st century conflict for examples of this. Even if foreign policy makers are well-intentioned (doubtful), the reality is policy decisions intended to favor select nations are ill-conceived at best, as they are rooted in an overly simplistic and essentially myopic view of the world: one that seeks domination, repression, coercion, and control.

National Security

Many argue that we are living in an age of rogue nation states and megalomaniacal dictators who have access to dangerous technologies, and are hell-bent on hostility and aggression towards the U.S. and her allies. And that we must actively work to neutralize such threats to our medium and long-term security.

However, I submit, that it is a history of duplicitous, oppressive, lying, and even murderous action dealing with nations, their heads of state, and their people, that is precisely the reason for so much hostility and aggression directed towards the U.S. and its allies. For a series of clearly documented cases of U.S. intrusion into the domestic affairs of other nations, read John Perkins' excellent and illuminating book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." This is precisely why a foreign policy of non-interventionism and "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," is not only desirable, but essential.

If the U.S. were to enter into a new era of "cease and desist" as far as military and economic involvement in foreign affairs is concerned, it would find the threats to its medium and long-term security virtually non-existent. The U.S. would be far more respected in the world, and would be in a much stronger position to be arbiters of conflict and promoters of genuine peace, especially when the nations of the world witnessed that it refrained from employing force or coercion even though it possessed the capability to do so. Instead, the U.S. could leave the handling of rogue nation states to those nations that are most affected in the region. And if affected nations requested the diplomatic aid of neutral 3rd party participants then willing parties could provide.

Espionage

The calls for prosecution of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act have no legal foundation. WikiLeaks is a news reporting and news analysis organization that provides a forum for whistleblowers to divulge corruption and illegal activity within their organizations. They are no different than news organizations like The New York Times, The Guardian, der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El País. Free speech rights of journalists are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

However, a case could be made for trying the whistleblower, Army Private First Class Bradley Manning under the Espionage Act, being in a similar situation to former military intelligence analyst whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making about the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. The landmark ruling is instructive as it sets the stage for the primacy of First Amendment rights over Executive need or privilege.

Briefly, on Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. The Times was then prevented from publishing its remaining articles by court order requested by the Nixon administration. On June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume freely (New York Times Co. v. United States). The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force the Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print classified materials.

Daniel Ellsberg later said the documents, "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates." He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war".

The question then becomes: should the Espionage Act protect the unconstitutional behavior of our public servants and elected officials, who have sworn an oath of office to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution? The answer is a clear and resounding 'NO'. Perhaps we also need to demand much stiffer penalties for public servants and elected officials who break their oath of office and engage in unconstitutional activities.

Personal Integrity

Many argue that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks are behaving irresponsibly by publishing information that is placing Americans at risk. However, it is not Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks that are behaving irresponsibly and endangering U.S. lives, but rather the U.S. government and their myopic foreign policies by placing Americans and allied troops in harms way in the first place. Remember, the reason provided by the U.S. government for entering into the Iraq war was that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. This claim turned out to be entirely false. With thousands of American and allied lives forfeited, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered, should this instead not be considered the pinnacle of irresponsibility and opprobrious conduct?

Others have attempted to character assassinate Julian Assange allegedly citing his use of blackmail by threatening to release a 'poison pill' of extra-sensitive classified information. However, upon further investigation, this is not a case of blackmail at all — he is simply protecting his greatest personal asset: his life. He has arranged things so that highly sensitive classified information will be released as a kind of insurance policy, in the event he is kidnapped or murdered. Julian Assange is no fool, and understands full well that his activities and the activities of WikiLeaks will upset more than a few individuals in positions of power. Nonetheless, individuals attacking Julian Assange, realizing they have no legal case against him or WikiLeaks, are now resorting to false 'sex crime' charges involving consensual relations between adults, in an attempt to arrest him and eventually extradite him to the U.S. The spectacle has now officially entered into the realm of the absurd.

Julian Assange, being the public face of WikiLeaks, is knowingly putting his life in danger for a cause no less important than the transparency and accountability of our governments. In time, this will lead to greater peace, justice, and freedom for all peoples through the free flow of information that exposes corruption at the highest levels. Citizens of the U.S. and other countries of the world now have increasingly the power of information at their disposal to hold their public servants accountable. Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks journalists and editors, should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as well as the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism for their selfless, courageous, and ground-breaking work. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honour for his bravery, courage and selfless service to his country.

It is clear that the furor that has been unleashed by the publishing of classified U.S. war and embassy cables is the direct result of decades of lies, duplicity, treachery, oppression and murderous foreign policy at the highest levels. History will pass judgement on people like Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and our elected officials who have sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Let us rest content then, in the judgement and verdict of history, which, in the end, tends towards truth.

"Three things cannot long be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." — Buddha

Selected Quotes

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." — George Orwell

“The first reaction to truth is hatred.” -- Tertullian

“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” — Winston Churchill

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” — Albert Einstein

"The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold." — Aristotle

"If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it." — Marcus Aurelius

"Honesty is the best policy." — Benjamin Franklin

"Justice and truth are the common ties of society." — John Locke

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities." — Voltaire

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels

References

1. Fighting Words Doctrine, Wikipedia
2. WikiLeaks Website
3. WikiLeaks Cablegate Website
4. John Perkins, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
5. Pentagon Papers, Wikipedia
6. New York Times Co. v. United States, Wikipedia
7. Robert Scheer, "Jefferson to Assange," Truthdig
8. Ron Paul, "Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks," Campaign For Liberty

Ground Zero Mosque Demagoguery and Pseudo Polls

Part of what makes the United States great is precisely that it guarantees rights and freedoms that are not readily available in many countries of the world including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others. It is the Constitution of the United States, and the efforts of its Founding Fathers to ensure that American citizens would continue to live in a truly just and free society, that makes the U.S. great, even though many would argue today that those freedoms are being gradually and methodically eroded.

Some of these often taken-for-granted freedoms include freedom of speech, especially when one disagrees with what others have to say; freedom of religion, even when one doesn't share the same religious views; and, yes, also protection of private property, the freedom to do what one chooses with one's possessions. For these reasons, it is sensible and reasonable that those who hold title to the land at ground zero be allowed to use it as they choose. Otherwise we risk descending down a slippery slope that begins to gut the Constitution and gradually deprive citizens of their rights under certain "special" circumstances.

And who decides what "special" circumstances there will be in exception to guaranteed Constitutional rights? And if we curtail certain Constitutional rights, why not others? Maybe in certain circumstances, free speech should not be allowed, or even the right to peaceful assembly, or religious freedom, or perhaps the right to keep and bear arms, or even the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? Clearly, we do not want to allow this sort of precedent. The ground zero mosque should not be banned or disallowed precisely on these grounds. We need not agree with the idea of building a mosque at the ground zero location, but we ought to allow it on principles of religious freedom, and protection of private property. Otherwise, our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms increasingly become perilously moot.

Much of the controversy over the building of the ground zero mosque appears to be intentional emotional propaganda on the part of luminary neo-Conservatives, attempting to create civil unrest prior to election season, as well as to justify their illegal wars in the middle east that are based on an imperialistic foreign policy in turn based on fear and propaganda (read: Orwell, 1984). In November we will have U.S. elections, and if Obama and company can be painted as pro-Muslim, pro-Islamist or somehow "un-American," the Republican Party could dramatically increase its chances of placing neo-Conservatives into key congressional and senatorial positions. If the people of the U.S. are going to replace elements of the Obama administration, they ought to do so for the right reasons: for their ill-advised economic policies, their ill-promised foreign and military policies, their ill-conceived healthcare legislation, and generally, their ill-continued Bush-administration policies. Not this colossal Romanesque bread and circuses distraction and highly emotional anti-Muslim propaganda.

In any case, just look at the backgrounds of media luminaries that are most vocal against the building of the mosque at ground zero: Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin. That luminescent mouthful should send a neo-Conservative shiver down one's spine. (Sarah Palin does a nice "Tea-Party / pro-Constitution" talk, but it's rife with rhetoric, short on substance). If one looks closely, one will find that the majority of heavily vocal media limelight critics of the ground zero mosque are staunch neo-Conservative supporters.

As for recent CNN polls that state 68% of the population are against the building of the mosque: 1) can we really trust the implied meaning behind these numbers? and 2) even if those numbers accurately portray American sentiment, it could just as well show how easily people are swayed by emotionally charged, righteously indignant propaganda. However, I'd like to believe that the majority of Americans are more intelligent than that, and what those numbers represent is something quite different.

The Daily Kos' recent article, "CNN's Ground Zero Mosque Poll: It's All in the Question," by Jed Lewison, shone a brilliant light on these poll numbers. In short, there's a big difference between agreeing with the building of the mosque, and agreeing with the right to build it. From the Daily Kos article:

"[T]his is a case where you have to look at the question to understand what the poll means. The question:"

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?

"When you ask the question with those words, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you're going to find a lot of opposition. It's not just that it frames the issue in the same way that Republicans have framed it, it's also that it completely sidesteps questions of tolerance and religious freedom."

"The question didn't even explicitly ask whether people believed the government should intervene to outlaw the mosque; it merely asked whether people supported plans by American Muslims to build it. Those two questions are not synonymous."

"CNN also didn't ask people whether they felt government should ban Muslims from choosing their own place of worship, nor did they ask whether all religious groups in America, even unpopular ones, deserve the same level of protection from the first amendment."

Jed Lewison then goes on to provide suggestions for better poll questions that would get at the heart of the matter. For example:

Do you believe the New York City government should forbid American Muslims from building a private house of worship anywhere in the vicinity of where the World Trade Center used to stand?

And:

Do you believe that every religious group, including the American Muslims building a house of worship two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand, deserves the same protection from the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty?

Or, more succinctly:

Should the government control who builds houses of worship and where they're located?

As the author states, these questions get at the core issue: whether the government ought to ban American Muslims from practicing freedom of religion.

"You don't need to be an active proponent of building the mosque to also believe that the government shouldn't ban it."

Well said, Jed.


References:

1. Ron Paul, "Left and the Right Demagogue Mosque, Islam," Campaign For Liberty
2. Jed Lewison, "CNNs Ground Zero Mosque Poll: Its All in the Question," The Daily Kos
3. Nate Silver, "Poll's, Reporting on Ground Zero May Mislead," FiveThirtyEight
4. The Times of India, "Most New Yorkers Against Ground Zero Mosque: Poll"
5. The Daily Beast, "Ground Zero Mosque: Whose For, Whose Against"