nous jouons en ce moment même une partie très importante au terme de laquelle nous saurons si nous sommes toujours des citoyens, ou si au contraire nous ne sommes plus que les sujets passifs d’une oligarchie financière et politique qui se méfie de nous mais refuse que nous nous méfions d’elle, qui nous gouverne et refuse que nous la maîtrisions.

We have transferred our most intimate and personal information — our bank accounts, e-mails, photographs, phone conversations, medical records — to digital networks, trusting that it's all locked away in some secret crypt. But Appelbaum knows that this information is not safe. He knows, because he can find it.

WikiLeaks vows to target banks

Posted Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:21am AEDT

• Related Story: WikiLeaks says major bank is its next target

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said his organisation had come under attack from banks as he vowed to release damaging leaks about them.

"We have been attacked, primarily not by government... although things are heating up now, but by banks, banks from Dubai, banks from Switzerland, banks from the US, banks from the UK, so yes of course we are continuing to release material about banks," he told CNBC television.

In an interview published last month by Forbes magazine, Mr Assange, who has released thousands of confidential diplomatic cables, claimed a fresh "megaleak" will target a major US bank "early next year".

Mr Assange said the bank leak would "give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume".

The controversial Australian said that he was ready to unleash tens of thousands of documents that could "take down a bank or two".

The main target is thought to be Bank of America, based on comments last year from Mr Assange.

WikiLeaks may be no more or less perfect than other media entities. Freedom of the press and of speech are often messy. But these rights are crucial, enshrined and protected as our most fundamental principles and practices.  The First Amendment is there to establish that it is not the job of the media in a democratic society to protect those in power from embarrassment or exposure. Thus, even when we are faced with what may we think of as “bad” press or speech, we must avoid responding with censorship -- the cure must not be worse than the disease.

If crimes have been committed in connection with the WikiLeaks experience, let the government make that case in court and let due process follow its course. But in the meantime, calls by some government leaders for the persecution of Julian Assange, or the extreme calls for his assassination, the intimidation of private internet service providers; the extra-legal freezing of WikiLeaks assets; and the blocking of the display of WikiLeaks-related information on government computers—even at the hallowed Library of Congress, where you can read all manner of subversive books—are affronts to an open society, a perversion of Internet activity, and a dagger aimed at the heart of the modern transparency movement.

The current reaction to WikiLeaks in the United States has exposed the vulnerability of any online publisher here to government pressure. This chilling effect on our democracy must be opposed.

We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.