About the Photo

The posters that popped up across the country were based on Alkhateeb's photo, but had the TIME magazine logo and branding removed and had added the word "socialism" at the bottom. Alkhateeb wasn't responsible for these changes - a yet-to-be-identified person is behind the posters' creation.

In fact, you may be surprised to hear that the Obama/Joker image wasn't even meant to be political commentary, according to Alkhateeb. That's quite ironic given that it has now embroiled him in this intense political debate. Instead, says the college student, he was just messing around after discovering an online tutorial that explained how to "Jokerize" photographs using Adobe Photoshop. It seems that Alkhateeb doesn't particularly care about politics himself, having chosen to abstain from voting in November since he felt his state (Illinois) was already sewn up and decided before the polls opened. His views on Obama aren't particularly one-sided either. Alkhateeb favors the democratic viewpoint on foreign relations but tends to side with Republicans on domestic issues.

In a recent L.A. Times profile on Alkhateeb, it's reported that the photo generated over 20,000 page views during the time it was hosted on the photo-sharing website Flickr.com. However, as of last Friday, Flickr removed the photo from their site. Why? Alkhateeb says he received an email from the company stating it had to be taken down due to "copyright infringement concerns." (Apparently, TIME magazine wasn't too happy seeing their brand associated with this sort of political commentary.)

What About Free Speech?

But isn't this sort of political commentary, political parody in fact, protected as a form of free speech? Noted photographer and blogger Thomas Hawk thinks it is, citing a precedent for fair use (Folsom v Marsh) which states "if you produce something that is transformative, and not derivative, then it's fair use." Although Hawk isn't a lawyer, he may be right on this one. Says Corynne McSherry, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit that defends digital rights, Alkhateeb has a strong fair use defense if he was ever sued. "You really want to think twice about going after a political commenter," she noted.

This wouldn't be the first time Flickr got involved with political censorship. Hawk also blogged about how the site deleted the account of a user named Shepherd Johnson after he made critical comments about Obama in the Official White House Photostream back in June.

So is this yet another case of Flickr engaging in censorship? Or are they legitimately protecting themselves from these "copyright infringement" claims? (Flickr won't comment on this since a company policy prohibits them from discussing issues surrounding one particular user.)

What do you think about this issue? Share your thoughts in the comments.

One man in particular is staging a protest against the censorship: He is calling for everyone in China to abandon the Internet on the day the new rule takes effect. According to GlobalPost, Beijing artist and prominent political critic Ai Weiwei wants other Chinese citizens to realize their own power.

Weiwei has a reputation for being a hugely prolific blogger, generating around 3,000 posts in his first three years of writing online. He also uses Twitter, Chinese microblogging service Fanfou, and other sites to spread the word about freedom of expression and overt criticism of the government in China.

On July 1, he is calling for all of China's 300 million Internet users to completely log off for the day. In the original post, even Ai noted, "Chinese people are very practical. They think 'Oh, what's that going to do?'" He is aware the action he's requesting is huge; however, he feels that even a small gesture of protest will have an impact.

In his own words, "A small act is worth a million thoughts."

Given Westerners' sudden bout of green-tinted solidarity with Iranian protesters, we do wonder if Weiwei's call to action (via online inaction) will spread beyond China. What effect do you think Weiwei's protest will have? How can those of us in other countries best express our own disapproval of that nation's censorship policies? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

It can't be assumed that all the proxies were created to support Iranian protesters, but they were probably all shared for that purpose. Renesys reports that the rate of proxy creation appears to have slumped dramatically over the last few days and newly shared proxies are now being added quickly to the official list of filtered destinations online. This could have consequences for the political movement's global visibility and underlines how important it is for everyday people to create proxies and share them with friends overseas ahead of time.

Renesys offers the following explanation of how proxies work:

A proxy server is a simple bit of software that you run on your computer. It effectively lets you share your computer with anonymous strangers as a "repeater" for content that they aren't allowed to fetch themselves. For example, an Iranian web browser might be manually configured to use your computer (identified by an IP address and a port number) as a Web proxy. When your anonymous friend reads twitter.com, or posts a tweet, the request goes via your computer, instead of to Twitter's web server directly. Except for a little delay, and the fact that your friend gets to see what the uncensored Internet looks like from New York or London or São Paolo instead of Tabriz or Qom, surfing through a proxy is pretty much like surfing without one.

The United States may have offered up more proxies than anywhere else, but the effort has truly been global. "The USA and Western Europe were well-represented, but so were China, India, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Vietnam," the firm wrote today. "87 countries in all, a pretty impressive breadth of representation, considering the relatively small size of this sample."

Unfortunately the construction of Iran's sophisticated censorship system was a global effort as well; the Wall St. Journal reported this weekend that Siemens and Nokia sold the Iranian government the technology that's being used to track down and silence protesters.

Renesys notes that public sharing of the proxies is making it too easy for the Iranian government to find and control them. The company suggests that it's far better to create proxies and start sharing them with people living under repressive governments ahead of major conflict - "don't wait until the tanks are in the streets to figure this out, because by that point, you may have already lost the proxy war."

If you would like to think ahead and set up a proxy for sharing with friends who could need it, Glype.com is one service you might begin with.

Within minutes (as far as we could tell), both terms were removed from the list on the web interface at Twitter.com. However, they still showed up on third party services such as TwitScoop and Hashtags.org. We feel this blog's cachet and provenance do not allow for the repetition of such phrases, so you'll have to check out the screen shots below and gasp in mock horror along with us.

And as of this moment, none of these terms are anywhere to be found on the Twitter website, although they all were a mere 10 minutes ago.

As asinine, spammy, emo, and pointless as trending topics have been in the recent past, why now is the Twitter team choosing to censor that list on their website? Is it the overtly sexual nature of the terms, or the fact that some people would consider those words indecent or profane?

Perhaps this will serve as a nice wake-up call to the team that the trending topics list is rather broken to begin with. Many sites lately have noted that the hashtags only serve as spam fodder, allowing questionable marketers to quickly stuff tweets with the terms to gain more attention for themselves. However, it seems at first glance that the majority of these tweets are coming from honest-to-god users, which is more frightening still. Whether or not the trending-topic tweets are spam, the topics themselves are very often sheer horror to peruse.

Should there be an algorithm for trends rather than making trending topics a pure numbers game? Should the system be fixed so that #liesboystell doesn't win out over truly important, significant, or newsworthy content? Should tweets, like images and other kinds of content, be screened for "adult" material and user preferences be set accordingly? Or do trends really belong to the lowest common denominator?

Some will probably respond that, as a purely statistical measurement, trending topics should fall under a laissez faire system, in which case censorship of those topics would be inaccurate reporting as well as suppression of free speech.

But the world already has Nickelback and Ugg boots; must we let the masses decide on Twitter trends, as well?

The editor, Thomas Mitchell, received the subpoena after his paper covered the prosecution of business owner Robert Kahre in a federal tax fraud case. He is quoted as saying that anonymous speech, including online comments, is "a fundamental and historic part of this country," but that his publication might cooperate if specific crimes or threats were a factor.

U.S. Assistant District Attorney J. Gregory Damm's name appears on the subpoena. He was also the prosecuting attorney for the case which was the subject of the original report.

Comments from the article in question call Damm "a socialist, fascist Mormon" (which is a radical contradiction in terms) and a "Nazi moron," which is a lovely example of Godwin's law. Another comment reads, "The sad thing is there are 12 dummies on the jury who will convict him. They should be hung along with the feds." On the same website, comments of an antisemitic, extremist nature exist and occasionally abound.

Thanks to Rex Dixon for sending this news our way.

According to the authors of this report, many of these households that aren't currently served by broadband connections would probably move directly to higher tier, 'super-fast' broadband services up to 40Mbps. The government will remain technology neutral under this scheme and look for the most cost effective means of providing availability, while also encouraging competition between different vendors and ISPs.

Next Generation Internet

Besides its direct focus on consumers, the report also argues that Britain's communications infrastructure for mobile and fixed broadband still compares favorably to the rest of the world. But is starting to show strains, as companies and the government haven't invested enough in the backhaul infrastructure (also known as the 'middle mile') in recent years.

The report also argues for the establishment of a fund to invest in creating the next generation of broadband access and services. The authors argue that in twenty years' time, countries where consumers are only connected over 3.3Mbps lines will be woefully left behind.  We have no idea where the author's got the number of 3.3Mbps from, but we would argue that 3.3Mbps will probably seem inadequate within just a few years from now.

Of course, even today, 2Mbps can barely be considered high-speed access anymore, though it is definitely a good baseline, as it will allow users to play back most of video content on the net without major inconveniences.

ISP Forced to Cut Back on Illegal P2P File Sharing

As the Guardian's Charles Arthur reports, however, British ISPs will also be required to cut illegal file sharing by 70%, and Ofcom, the "independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries" will be charged with getting ISPs to comply with this. Chapter 4 of the report also claims that P2P file sharing currently costs the UK music industry around £180 million per year, and that the TV and film industry is loosing about £152 per year. Those numbers always have to be taken with a grain of salt (not every copy represents a lost sale, after all), but if Ofcom doesn't see a 70% reduction in file sharing within a year, it will have the power to force ISPs to block specific sites and protocols (like Bittorrent, for example).

The Music Ally blog features a more detailed breakdown of the proposed anti-piracy measures.

Sadly, there is also some evidence that while the Chinese government is still keenly aware of the events of June 4th 1989, a large number of young Chinese know very little about the event.

Indians around the internet are condemning the ruling as a blow against freedom of speech and democracy. It certainly appears to be a dangerous misunderstanding of the nature of the internet on the part of the court and a bad precedent in the most populous democracy in the world.

We're not sure what the number of potential readers has to do with anything and we find it pretty frightening that a court that would say "you're a computer student so you know how many people use the internet" had any say at all in such matters.

According to reports the comments in question were left by anonymous users and the group's owner claimed they were legitimate exercises of free speech. The youth arm of the political party facing criticism apparently filed suit under a law pertaining to "hurting public sentiment."

There are more than 1,000 groups on Orkut that show up in a search for "Shiv Sena," some for and some very much against the party. We're writing based on relatively light local reporting, so it's possible that the group started by Ajith D was particularly heinous. On principle, though, we presume that the young man should not face legal charges for anonymous comments left by others - no matter what those comments were.

Late last year Facebook shut down a group on that site that appeared to be celebrating acts of genocide against Bosnian Muslims. People lost their Facebook accounts and the group was closed due to violation of the site's Terms of Service against advocating violence - but filing legal charges against the group's admin would have been an entirely different matter.

India's Supreme Court ruling that the Orkut group owner could be sued for anonymous comments sounds like a terrible ruling to us and the kind of thing that web users all around the world should be concerned about. India is the world's second most populous country and its largest democracy. It's a large and complicated country, though. While the recent rise of the Indian middle class and tech sectors have received substantial attention, the country still has one of the highest child malnutrition rates in the world - twice that of Sub Saharan Africa according to the World Bank.

Democracies are complicated; the United States has one of the highest rates of imprisonment of any industrialized countries in the world, holds a shockingly disproportionate number of its young black men in prison and was founded on an experiment in ethnic cleansing. Who has the moral high ground?

While big picture questions are important, this particular case is as well. Will Google intervene in defense of Ajith D's use of its website? Will the US government, now more than ever advocating the use of free-flowing information technology to advance human well being, have anything to say about this potentially terrible precedent being set? We suspect neither will occur.

It's a good idea for us as individual web users to remember that even as new internet technology sets so much information and so many voices free, even in a celebrated democracy - online freedom may be one repressive legal ruling away from being put at serious risk. No matter where you might live - do you trust that your local judiciary would understand the issues in a case like this? We don't.

Recent Landmarks

We profiled Wikileaks last winter when the site was temporarily taken offline for US visitors by a court injunction in California. The judge in that case quickly reversed his injunction and the site lived on to post more whistle blowing reports.

From Apple iPhone documents to internal communications by the Church of Scientology, Wikileaks is publishing secrets fast and furious regarding some of the most high profile issues of the day.

Probably its most high profile post went up last week, though. On Friday, November 21st Wikileaks published the entire membership and contact list of the white nationalist British National Party. Record numbers of people flooded the Wikileaks site to scour over the list and see if they recognized names on it. Police officers, members of the Army, former and serving prison officers and a number of school teachers were identified. At least one police officer identified has been publicly rebuked by his employer.

Wikileaks published 24 more documents since the Party list, including a copy of a pamphlet that Party members were arrested for distributing in Liverpool. The site condemned the arrests and argued that politically repugnant speech was the most important kind to protect.

Next Steps

As Wikileaks continues to raise its public profile, publishing a greater number of damning documents and facing more intense scrutiny - the organization is communicating very publicly about the ethical, legal and technical challenges it faces on a companion blog called Wikileak.org.

"We have never lost a source, never lost a case and have never been successfully censored," the site says. Now we'll see if their supporters can help them scale up to new heights and still maintain that record.

What prompted the debate in the first place was Apple's decision to reject an app known as the Podcaster, which would have permitted you to listen to podcasts without first downloading them in iTunes. Because the app "duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes," says Apple, they decided to reject it from inclusion in the App store.

Unfairly Rejected?

On almerica.blogspot.com, Sokirynsky wrote how he doesn't understand why Apple can reject his app for duplicating iTunes functionality when similar apps do the same. Specifically he mentions how any calculator app duplicates the functionality of the Apple calculator. Yet what's even more strange, he notes, is the fact that there are already several apps that allow you to listen to a podcast outside of iTunes. For example, popular apps like Diggnation and Mobility Today are designed just for streaming podcasts. Those apps are not banned from the App Store, so why is his?

Working Around Apple: Ad Hoc Distribution

Designed for use in the enterprise environment, Ad Hoc distribution was created so I.T. departments would have the option to distribute apps from their company's own servers. This allows a business to maintain security and save on external bandwidth, while making it simpler to update and remove apps from users' phones. In order to utilize this method for distribution, a developer needs to register 100 iPhones and/or iPod Touch devices.

Obviously, an app distributed this way will have less chance for success than one made publicly available in the App Store, but it appears to be not only a perfectly viable workaround for getting past the Apple censors, but a perfectly legal one as well.

How To Sign Up For Podcaster

Alex has set up a web page at www.nextdayoff.com where he's signing up those interested in downloading the app. Here you must enter your email address and UDID as the first step in the Ad Hoc distribution process. The UDID, or Unique Data Item Description, is available from within iTunes. To see your UDID, you have to click on the word "serial number" which displays beside the picture of your iPhone/iPod Touch when it's connected. The UDID is a long string of alphanumeric characters which will appear in place of the serial number. You can copy this number to your clipboard by using "Ctrl + C" or "Command + C."

After you enter your email address and UDID on the nextdayoff.com web page, you'll receive a confirmation email within 24 hours. (Mine came much quicker - only minutes). Upon receiving confirmation, you can then return to the nextdayoff.com web page and re-enter your email address. At this point, you'll be prompted to make a donation of $9.99, payable via PayPal. After the donation is received, you'll receive an email with a download link to the application, which is distributed as a .zip file. Installation involves unzipping the files and dragging them to iTunes, but be sure to read the included instructions, especially if you're a Windows user, as there are some technical details you'll need to know.

Will Apple Shut This Down, Too?

Alex appears to be the first application developer who thought to use the Ad Hoc method to distribute a banned app. (If you know of others, please comment). However, given that Apple has confirmed the existence of a "kill switch," we wonder if they will start using it to wipe banned, but distributed, apps such as this from our iPhones. If that's the case, you can bet the uproar over that decision will be even greater than it was over the original ban.

It seems like Apple is stuck between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." If they choose to ignore this, Ad Hoc distribution will almost certainly become the method of choice for distributing banned apps. But if they pull the "kill switch," they could then potentially alienate their community of developers. What do you think Apple will do? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

To learn more about what the Podcaster app does, you can view this video:

Apparently, two British TV viewers were unhappy about the fact that one Apple TV ad for the iPhone stated that the phone would give you access to the whole Internet. However, because the phone does not support Flash or Java, these folks argued that this is a misleading statement and the Advertising Standards Authority  agreed.

Security Hole

The gaping security hole in Apple's firmware for both the iPhone and iPod touch is maybe the most embarrassing of these three stories for Apple, especially because the problem was already known and fixed back in the days of the first iPhone.

If you lock your phone with a security code, anybody can bypass that code by hitting the 'Emergency Call' button and then double tapping your home button (if it is still set to display your favorites, which is the default behavior). After that, you have full access to the contact list, email, web etc.

If you want to protect your self from this, just set the home button to do anything but display your favorites (Settings -> General -> Home Button.)

Comic Book Controversy

As if all of this weren't enough, Apple itself created some more controversy after it moved to ban the violent comic book Murderdrome (which is based on the ComicReader app) from its App Store. As Apple's SDK states, the apps are not to offend anybody and Apple itself is the sole arbiter of offensiveness, so the company was in its right to ban this book, which, after all, features a good number of beheadings and ripped out limbs, which might make some users feel a bit queasy about the comic.

Apple's SDK states:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

On the other hand, this is a comic book and, while a bit over the top, it doesn't feature anything that other comic books haven't shown before.

For developers, this once again shows the dangers of working within Apple's closed off iPhone ecology, where Apple has the final say over what gets included and what doesn't, with no place but the Internet to complain about it.

So What Does Apple Do?

In typical Apple fashion, the company has not made any statement about any of these issues yet - and is likely not to do so anytime soon. That, for better or worse, is the way Apple operates. At the same time, though, the disastrous launch of MobileMe forced Apple to issue repeated notices about the status of the service. Maybe (and just maybe) this current firestorm of problems might just force the company to open up a bit more, though we don't expect Steve Jobs to start blogging about iPhone apps anytime soon.

The letters sent to Durbin are not very concrete in their description of the code, though they all stress the following three core components:

Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy that provide direction and guidance to the ICT industry and its stakeholders in protecting and advancing the enjoyment of freedom of expression and privacy globally. The Principles describe key commitments in the following areas: Freedom of Expression; Privacy; Responsible Company Decision Making; Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration; Governance, Accountability, Transparency.

Implementation Guidelines that provide further details on how participating companies will put the Principles into practice. The Implementation Guidelines describe a set of actions which constitute compliance with the Principles and provide companies with guidance on how to implement the Principles.

A Governance, Accountability and Learning Framework founded on the notion that an organizational and multi-stakeholder governance structure is required to support the Principles and that participating companies should be held accountable for their role in the implementation of the Principles through a system of independent assessment.

All three companies also stress that this code could potentially have far-reaching effects on their operations in countries like China and that they have already established internal rules for how to deal with these issues.

During the Olympics, even journalists will not be allowed to access the full and open Internet, thanks to an agreement between the IOC and China, though China eased at least some of these restrictions after the first reports on this.

As Jim Puzzanghera notes in the LA Times, Yahoo especially has been criticized heavily for the way it handled the case of journalist Shi Tao in 2006. At that time, Yahoo revealed his identity as being linked to a Yahoo e-mail address after being pressured by Chinese officials. Shi Tao was later sentenced to 10 years in prison.

We've found two instances of words that will get a Facebook message blocked and we presume there are others. The company says it's spam control, but it seems creepy to us.

Obscenity isn't blocked by Facebook, I was able to send a message that said "John McCain is a f*cking Nazi" (asterisk free) with no problem.

The "pro-white" message board American Rennaisance News complains though, that links to their site couldn't be sent in messages last month. That's no longer the case today and you are now free to send links to their disgusting content around Facebook however you please.

Facebook's Reply

What does Facebook have to say? "That domain has been blocked from the site," Director of Communications Brandee Barker told us about Wadja.com. "Facebook has measures in place to protect users from spam and other unwanted contact. When we detect that certain content is being used to spam or harass, as in this case, we may block it so that it can no longer be posted or sent."

Wadja certainly isn't shy about leaving comments on any blog post they can find about mobile social networks and the company felt compelled to issue a press release last month about new steps it was taking to protect its own users from spam. The site has received a number of good reviews from reputable mobile industry blogs, though.

The only other mention on the entire web we can find of Wadja having spam problems is a lone Tweet from a nice Greek man who complains that "Το Wadja αντιμετωπίζει πολά προβλήματα με το spam - πολλά μηνύματα στο email μου από δήθεν κορίτσια που ενδιαφέρονται..." - or "The Wadja pola facing problems with spam - many messages in my email supposedly from girls who are interested ..." How different is that from MySpace until just a few months ago?

American Renaissance News apparently got itself unblocked somehow in the last month. What's the avenue of appeal at Facebook for a blocked domain? What constitutes harassment? I was able to say "plaxo.com" no problem - might there have been a time when I couldn't and how did that happen?

It appears that Facebook is doing what any spam filter might do, but there's no visible way for spam to be seen by recipients or to train the spam filter. Doesn't this seem awfully arbitrary?

Should my friends and I not be allowed to discuss repugnant political views or spammy social networks or things that are "yuwie" on Facebook?

So much public communication now goes on through these privately owned channels that if free speech is going to mean much in the future there is going to need to be at least some transparency around decision making by the major social networking platforms.

Why This is Important

Should users be subject to Facebook's fickle free speech standards? While the company is engaging in heated discussions about data portability, a solid foundation in support for free speech seems a prerequisite for being taken seriously. For a company that speaks so loudly about the importance of user privacy to check the text of messages between its members and block content for arbitrary reasons seems pretty...yuwie if you ask me.

Perhaps users appreciate this kind of control by Facebook, though, and would rather some random fringe groups get any mention of their names blocked than run the risk of getting unwanted messages.

We weren't able to send the text of the message above to friends on Facebook either - until we put asterisks in for vowels in the words yuwie and wadja.com. We were able to post the contents on this post as a note in Facebook, no problem. It all seems pretty arbitrary and that's not an appropriate tone for a communications platform.

Freedom of speech advocates in Russia call the extremism laws too vague and sweeping, arguing that they are open for abuse by government officials. Last year, Russian news site www.gazeta.ru was warned for extremism after writing about political cartoons that satirized the prophet Mohammed.

Suprisingly, surveys show that many Russians actually favor government control of the media. A 2005 study found that 82% of Russians were in favor of censorship on television, though generally that referred to the removal of "ethically questionable" material (such as sex or violence) rather than the supression of free political thought. It should be noted that Article 29 of the Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.

"It is a worry whenever the government tries to change any law," Oleg Panfilov, director of the Centre of Journalism in Extreme Situations, told the AFP. "It is difficult to find anyone who is not against extremism but it depends on how the law is used. The government uses (it) selectively."

A 2007 report on press freedom from Freedom House (PDF) rated Russia as "not free" and noted that specifically the atmosphere of press freedom had decline under President Vladimir Putin. That's a trend that seems to have continued in 2008 and begun to spread toward the realm of government Internet censorship. A couple of months ago, it was reported that Russian ISPs were "testing" filters and blocking a few major opposition party news web sites.

Check out this section from the site's submission page:

Wikileaks accepts classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic or ethical significance. Wikileaks does not accept rumor, opinion or other kinds of first hand reporting or material that is already publicly available.

All staff who deal with sources are accredited journalists or lawyers. All submissions establish a journalist-source relationship. Online submissions are routed via Sweden and Belgium which have first rate journalist-source shield laws. Wikileaks records no source identifying information and there are a number of submission mechanisms available to deal with even the most sensitive national security information.

Well hot damn.

Feeds and Search

Interested in keeping track of the leaks and news? There's no RSS feed on Wikileaks, but you know how much we love Dapper here at RWW so here's a feed you can subscribe to: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Wikileaks. If you're interested only in leaked documents that get some press, subscribe to the most popular items on Wikileaks feed.

If you've got your taste for government documents whetted (and what better time than the present?) check out these other fine sites and the OPML file below to subscribe to feeds and best of from each of them. Can you recommend others?

• Crymptome - so sketchy. It's been around for years though - maybe Wikileaks is showing it up. Still a good, if often dry, read though. Cryptome's Greatest Hits
• National Security Archives at George Washington University - hot stuff. Super reputable.
• Here's everybody in a bundle: http://readwriteweb.com/images/RWWGovWatchDogsFeeds.opml

  Just right click to save the linked file above and you can import that bundle of feeds in OPML format into your feed reader. There you can chose which ones you want to keep or read them all. Below is a live preview using Grazr to show you what's currently in the feeds. Click around in there and make yourself at home.

• Finally, here's a custom search engine for US Government Watchdog Sites. You can click on the Google cached pages for WikiLeaks there. Bookmark and enjoy!