Amazon Web Services (AWS) rents computer infrastructure on a self-service basis. AWS does not pre-screen its customers, but it does have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not following them. There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that “you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content… that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.” It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. Human rights organizations have in fact written to WikiLeaks asking them to exercise caution and not release the names or identities of human rights defenders who might be persecuted by their governments

Whatever a U.S. diplomat hears or says in conversations with local government officials and colleagues from other countries now runs the risk of being published and read by thousands of people from dozens of countries. Such conversations are bound to be governed by the fear of public exposure. America’s diplomatic relations with friends and allies, Mr. Assange will be pleased to hear, have been severely damaged. Not permanently, but at least for a while.

Some say Mr. Assange does not seem to understand that the United States is still the behind-the-scenes catalyst for resolving tough regional and global issues. And that he has made it harder to resolve critical issues around the world by making the U.S. a less trusted interlocutor. The flip side of the coin says “International Subversives.” They seek global chaos to spawn a New World Order. It’s also called the totalitarian temptation, which has existed from time immemorial.

Around the world, governments seem to be more interested in obeying the goals of industry lobbyists and the rich than in actually governing well; this isn’t an accident, but the outcome of the capture of the machinery of governance by groups of individuals who are self-selecting for adherence to a narrow ideological outlook. In effect we are beset by accidental authoritarian conspiracies — not top-down conspiracies led by a white-cat-stroking Bond villain, but unintentional ad-hoc conspiracies by groups of individuals who work together to promote common interests. By coordinating, they can gain control of our institutions and impose an agenda that is agreeable to their interests (but not to the majority of the public). Familiar examples might include: the music and film industries and their catspaws among the lobbyists attending the WIPO intellectual property negotiations, the oil and coal industries, the religious right, and so on.

Assange has a model of how the abduction of governance by common interest groups — such as corporations and right wing political factions — works in the current age. His goal is to impair the ability of these groups to exert control over democratic institutions without the consent of the governed. By forcing these authoritarian institutions to apply ever-heavier burdens of secrecy to their internal communications, wikileaks aims to reduce their ability to coordinate and, thus, to exert control:

“Authoritarian regimes give rise to forces which oppose them by pushing against the individual and collective will to freedom, truth and self realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce resistance. Hence these plans are concealed by successful authoritarian powers. This is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.”

Assange’s analysis parallels Chomsky’s — modulo having a somewhat different ideological outlook — but he’s gone a significant step further, and is fighting back. His own explanation is here (warning: PDF).

Wikileaks is not attacking the US government; rather, it’s acting to degrade the ability of pressure groups to manipulate the US government to their own ends. Those who benefit the most from their ability to manipulate the State Department are the most angry about this: autocratic middle eastern leaders, authoritarian right-wing politicians, royalty, corporate cartels. Those of us who are scratching our heads and going “huh?” about the significance of Muammar Ghadaffi’s botox habit are missing the point: it’s not about the content, but about the implication that the powerful can no longer count on their ability to lie to the public without being called on it.

In an ideal world, wikileaks wouldn’t be necessary. But the US mass media has been neutered and coopted by the enemies of the public interest.

A computer hacker who calls himself “The Jester” claimed responsibility for the cyber attack which took down the WikiLeaks site Sunday, shortly before it started posting hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables.

The Jester, who describes himself as a “hacktivist for good,” said he took the controversial site down “for attempting to endanger the lives of our troops, ‘other assets’ & foreign relations.”

He normally attacks Islamist websites, announcing “TANGO DOWN” on his Twitter account when claiming to have attacked a site. “Tango Down” is Special Forces jargon for having eliminated a terrorist.

Over the past few days, the Jester has targeted a handful of websites for reasons including “online incitement to cause young Muslims to carry out acts of violent jihad,” “distributing jihadist instructional materials,” and “for the online radicalization of young Muslims in US and Europe.”

The Jester describes himself as “an ex-soldier with a rather famous unit, country purposely not specified.”

“I was involved with supporting Special Forces, I have served in (and around) Afghanistan amongst other places,” he told the website threatchaos.com early this year.

WikiLeaks said in September that it had prepared an unspecified “insurance policy” against its site being taken down.

“This annoyed me… so I got busy,” the Jester wrote on his blog in September.

The calls for an all-out campaign against WikiLeaks are growing more shrill. Tony Shaffer of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer, told Fox News that he would like to see military action against Assange: “I would look at this very much as a military issue. With potentially military action against him and his organization.” (While the Obama administration no longer uses the term “enemy combatant,” it claims (PDF) the authority to “detain” someone who has provided “substantial support” to enemies of the United States.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said: “WikiLeaks and people that disseminate information to people like this are criminals, first and foremost. And I think that needs to be clear.” That’s an indication the investigation has gone beyond WikiLeaks’ source to the group itself. He added, when asked against legal action against WikiLeaks and Assange: “We are looking at a whole host of things, and I wouldn’t rule anything out.” And syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer reportedly said on Fox News (I haven’t seen this segment myself yet) that journalists should be investigated: “To say that if you are unlike CNN and Wall Street Journal, who apparently turned down collaboration with WikiLeaks, and you collaborate, we are going to look into possible prosecution.”

Monique Wadsted, an attorney representing American record companies, was pleased with the ruling.

“It’s a relief that the court of appeal finally affirmed that if you carry out this type of activity, you’ll go to prison,” she told TT.

“In two years, this type of piracy will be over. After a ruling like this and all the pioneers start to get older and have children and families, piracy won’t occur to this extent.”

While Christian Engström, a member of the European Parliament representing the Pirate Party, called the ruling “depressing,” he disputed whether the ruling would affect file sharing.

“The judgement has no meaning for file sharing. It has continued to increase from year to year and the technical capabilities continue to develop,” he told TT.

He currently travels internationally between one and three times a month in connection with his company, Whisper Systems, which recently released two free encryption applications for Android phones that protect SMS messages and voice calls.

“They’re beginning to destroy my ability to run a business with international customers, ” he says. “I can’t travel internationally without assurances that I’m not going to spend 5 hours in a detention room and am not going to lose whatever electronic devices I have with me at the time.”