Hackers publish "private" Tony Blair info

Screen shot 2011-06-24 at 6.33.18 PM.png

Team Poison, one of hacking outfit LulzSec's rivals, has published what it claims is private information about former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other British government officials.

In this Zine: - Tony Blair Office Members Information - Tony Blair Address & Phone Book (Includes family, friends, MPs & lords) - Katie Kay Curriculum vitae (Tony Blairs special adviser)

Posted to pastebin, the release contains the names, address and other contact info of numerous people and a detailed resumé said to be Kay's. It also states that the information was obtained in December 2010 and that Team Poison still has access to the webmail server that yielded it. In an earlier tweet, the group (styled TeaMp0isonN_) earlier promised that Blair "and his cockroaches are getting owned tonight. - War IS Terror." Blair, with U.S. President George W. Bush, agitated for the war in Iraq and is accused of manufacturing and exaggerating evidence of the Iraqi regime's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction to support their cause. Depending on the source, up to 600,000 civilians died during the war and the subsequent U.S. occupation.

⟿ Follow Rob Beschizza on Twitter.

MORE: politics

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

wrybread

“Rivals” of LulzSec? Are you sure? Aren’t they more like allies or maybe even teammates?
Anonymous

“Depending on the source, up to 600,000 civilians died during the war and the subsequent U.S. occupation.”

Its a small point, but an important one, given the seriousness of the matter. This statement is simply wrong. Five seconds of googling takes you to the Wikipedia page for Casualties of The Iraq War. There you can read that the highest estimate of casualties is actually 1,446,063 deaths, the upper margin of error of the Opinion Research Business conducted in September 2007, which gave a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063. This study has been broadly criticised and so maybe you meant write that “the highest, credible source for civilian deaths during the war….”.

However, you would still be wrong. The highest credible figure for civilian deaths up until June 2006 is 942,636. This figure is the upper 95% confidence interval the second study of excess Iraqi casulaties published in the Lancet in 2006, one of the world’s premier medical journals, and described by the the Ministry of Defence’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, as “robust” and its claimed methods “close to ‘best practice’ in this area”. The study found a mean figure of 654,965 excess deaths resulting from the war and occupation with 95% confidence intervals of 392,979 and 942,636.

The real figure is surely over a million dead civilians by now, five years on. And, seeing as nearly 50,000 US troops remain on the ground in Iraq and casualties continue to be inflicted upon the Iraqi population, I don’t think you can legitimately claim that the occupation, or the civilian casualties, have ended.

Its really very frustrating when you see propaganda regurgitated uncritically by an ostensible bastion of rational thinking and alternative news like BoingBoing.
- failix
  
  The above comment is directed towards anon…
- zyodei
  
  Actually, I was just jumping on this thread to say that a new estimate released by the Iraqi government put it at 2.5 Million (i first read this on Iranian news; the following article is not cited):
  
  http://jnoubiyeh.com/2011/06/occupied-iraq-25-million-dead-iraqis.html
- Anonymous
  
  Also it’s also worth considering how many Iraqis were killed by the US prior to the 2003 invasion:
  
  “An investigation by Beth Osborne Daponte estimated civilian fatalities at about 3,500 from bombing, and some 100,000 from other effects of the war”
  
  “The exact number of Iraqi combat casualties is unknown, but it is believed to have been heavy. Some estimate that Iraq sustained between 20,000 and 35,000 fatalities.[80] A report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force, estimated 10,000-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign, and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war.[83] This analysis is based on Iraqi prisoner of war reports.”
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Casualties
  
  “Estimates of excess civilian deaths during of the sanctions vary widely, but range from 100,000 to over 1.5 million.”
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
  
  “Denis Halliday was the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq from September 1, 1997, until 1998. He is Irish and holds an M.A. in Economics, Geography and Public Administration from Trinity College, Dublin.
  Denis Halliday resigned in 1998 over the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq, characterizing them as “genocide”. He subsequently gave the following explanation of his decision to resign:
  
  “I often have to explain why I resigned from the United Nations after a 30 year career, why I took on the all powerful states of the UN Security Council; and why after five years I continue to serve the well being of the people of Iraq. In reality there was no choice, and there remains no choice. You all would have done the same had you been occupying my seat as head of the UN Humanitarian Program in Iraq.
  
  I was driven to resignation because I refused to continue to take Security Council orders, the same Security Council that had imposed and sustained genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. I did not want to be complicit. I wanted to be free to speak out publicly about this crime.
  
  And above all, my innate sense of justice was and still is outraged by the violence that UN sanctions have brought upon, and continues to bring upon, the lives of children, families â€“ the extended families, the loved ones of Iraq. There is no justification for killing the young people of Iraq, not the aged, not the sick, not the rich, not the poor.
  
  Some will tell you that the leadership is punishing the Iraqi people. That is not my perception, or experience from living in Baghdad. And were that to be the case â€“ how can that possibly justify further punishment, in fact collective punishment, by the United Nations? I donâ€™t think so. And international law has no provision for the disproportionate and murderous consequences of the ongoing UN embargo â€“ for well over 12 long years”
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Halliday
  
  And then it gets even worse when you consider the US support for Saddam’s war with Iran in the 1980′s.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
Pavlo

It seems as days of Wild West, open, internet are numbered.
- noen
  
  “It seems as days of Wild West, open, internet are numbered.”
  
  Governments in the west will topple if they try to shut it down. Not in the nice way through elections, the other way.
  - Anonymous
    
    How will governments “topple”? Hell, the US survived a civil war, I think it can survive an internet brewhaha.
  - Pavlo
    
    I didn’t mean shut down, the people would go nuts. However, restrictions and laws, to protect “us” and them. So let’s just enjoy our days as last savages to browse the open net.
Sharktopus

When are these “hackers” going to start going after the *real* bad guys?
- Mike K
  
  Are you kidding? Those real guys are brutal. They are lawless & have real guns. Your linux boxen wouldn’t stop a bullet.
Anonymous

Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. I shall publish your phone number #FirstWorldAvengers
quitterjunior

70k deaths ~ Hiroshima initial blast, up to >200k by 1950
>60 million ~ WWII total casualties

I’m not trying to editorialize with these – just trying to put things in perspective. People tend to embellish in the kind of argument that is inevitably going to ensue from Anon’s point. It’s like watching someone’s eyes from across a bus, as they try to watch the passing scenery. We’re not equipped to comprehend the magnitude of two deaths, much less 70K/600K/900K/60M. Before this devolves into a numbers-oriented Google-fu showdown, let’s just all admit that we can’t tell the difference between 600K and 900K, and that even the best war stats are precise, but inaccurate.

Instead, let’s talk about how Blair is a girl’s name.
- Anonymous
  
  As Stalin supposedly said, one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
Anonymous

@Sharktopus

If Tony Blair is responsible for the deaths of 600,000 people, then I think that probably warrants the epithet “bad guy”.
- Anonymous
  
  @Anon
  
  So when “hackers” find a bad guy, they… publish his contact and cv ?
  
  Woah, THAT will teach him for sure !
failix

You cherry pick data. Every estimate that can be taken seriously points to a number around 100 000. The only estimate that goes as high as 1 million is deeply flawed and riddled with mistakes and bad methodology as for example is shown in the peer reviewed paper entitled “Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate”.

-Data leaked by wikileaks points to around 100 000.
-The Iraq body count project points to around 100 000.
-The associated press points to around 100 000.
-The Iraq family health survey points to around 100 000.
-etc.

Why do you need to cherry pick or lie in order to make your point? If you think Tony Blair is a war criminal then it doesn’t matter how many people’s death he is responsible for if you can prove he’s guilty of war crimes. Even if he ordered the execution of only 10 people that would be enough to convict him. There’s no need for these exaggerated and false figures; they just undermine your point.

And as far as whether or not Tony Blair actually is a war criminal; even if the Iraq war was illegal, that wouldn’t make him a war criminal. A war crime is a term to designate actions that are in violation of laws in an armed conflict. Not respecting UN decisions isn’t a violation of a law in an armed conflict. Part of what happens in Guantanamo is arguably one such violation, however I can’t think of anything that Tony Blair could be directly held accountable for to convict him of war crimes.

I doubt any of these hackers care to back up such serious accusations anyway. It’s nothing but lame and empty sloganizing.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  The Lancet, which is as reliable a source as you’re likely to encounter, estimates 650,000 war deaths in Iraq.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
  - travtastic
    
    That was back in 2006. Clearly, at least 550,000 of them had time to respawn since then. Why do you think we can’t seem to get anywhere?
  - failix
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties#Criticisms.2C_countercriticisms
    
    Just because the lancet is a reliable source doesn’t mean it can’t make mistakes. I’d ask myself the question why their estimate is so different from every other estimate, and why every other estimate (except the ORB estimate) seems to find the same results.
    
    What’s more likely; all those people conspired to let the public believe there were 100 000 casualties (as if that wasn’t already a huge number), or the lancet study is simply wrong as most researchers on the topic believe it is?
    - travtastic
      
      First off, you’re mixing studies done with different data sets. For one, the Iraq Body Count only records deaths reported in the Western media. Associated Press is the Western Media, and wikileaks is a source from the people responsible for the invasion.
      
      As for the Iraq Family Health Survey, read this. It’s nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be.
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      What’s more likely; all those people conspired to let the public believe there were 100 000 casualties (as if that wasn’t already a huge number), or the lancet study is simply wrong as most researchers on the topic believe it is?
      
      Once you remove the criticisms from overtly political sources and from non-scientific media sources, the number of legitimate critics drops a bit. And, if you follow those links, Lancet has critiqued their methods and results.
      
      Whether or not the Lancet study is more correct or not, your original accusations of cherry-picking and lying are not supported.
failix

“Crimes against peace”? I don’t get it… Look, if you’re an unconditional pacifist I can totally respect that,and if you think that every violent government action regardless of context should be branded a crime that’s okay, I won’t try to convince you of my position. I’m just sick of lazy comparisons between people like Tony Blair and actual war criminals.

Call me pedantic, I don’t care, but a war criminal is a person responsible of having committed a certain type of offense, and calling someone a war criminal is a serious accusation. If you call Tony Blair a war criminal it discredits the accusations against actual western war criminals like Kissinger. In the latter case we have real evidence of very real war crimes, when in the case of Tony Blair all you have is that he didn’t respect the UN. Calling somebody a war criminal shouldn’t be banal. It should be taken seriously in the hopes that especially western war criminals get punished for their actions some day.
- travtastic
  
  Crimes against peace
- travtastic
  
  That is pedantic. Is it lazy that we don’t regularly use terms like fratricide, matricide and uxoricide when describing a murder?
mikepbc42

failix is right that some people are just cherry picking high numbers.

The ORB poll has been completely discredited. This peer-reviewed paper demonstrates that its data are bogus, as well as highlights numerous methodological flaws that greatly inflated the estimate:

http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/viewArticle/2373

The Lancet study is somewhat less clear, as there are still some academics that insist it’s credible, but it has been widely criticized as methodologically unsound, unreliable, and even fraudulent in the academic literature, including the following eight(!) peer-reviewed papers:

1) The Iraq Family Health Survey:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0707782

2) The ‘Main Street Bias’ paper:
http://www.prio.no/Research-and-Publications/Journal-of-Peace-Research/Article-of-the-year/Article-of-the-Year-2008/

3) Wartime estimates of Iraqi civilian casualties, by Beth Osborne Daponte:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/review/review-868-p943.htm
(Note that Daponte is cited above as the autority on Gulf War I casualties, and here rejects the Lancet estimate and concludes that IBC and the IFHS and ILCS surveys provide the best available data.)

4) Sampling bias in systems with structural heterogeneity and limited internal diffusion (elaborates on the Main Street Bias paper):
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4420v3

5) Confidence Intervals for the Population Mean Tailored to Small Sample Sizes, with Applications to Survey Sampling, by Rosenblum & van der Laan
http://www.bepress.com/ijb/vol5/iss1/4/

6) Ethical and Data-Integrity Problems in the Second Lancet Survey of Mortality in Iraq, by Michael Spagat, Defence and Peace Economics, 2010; 21: 1-41. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10242690802496898

7) Retrospective two-stage cluster sampling for mortality in Iraq, by Seppo Laaksonen, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2008, pp. 403-417
http://www.warc.com/Pages/Taxonomy/Results.aspx?SubjectRef=247&Filter=All

8) Mainstreaming an Outlier: The Quest to Corroborate the Second Lancet Survey of Mortality in Iraq, by Michael Spagat. Defence and Peace Economics, 2011; 23(3): 299-316. http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/014/Mainstreaming.pdf

That is just the ones that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. There are many other academic critiques as well. These include:

Center for the Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters – concludes that the Lancet survey was about 5 times too high:
http://www.cedat.be/publication/cred-working-paper-estimating-mortality-civil-conflicts-lessons-iraq

AAPOR censuring the lead author of the Lancet survey for failing to disclose basic methodological and other information about the survey (a complaint made by many other researchers as well):
http://www.aapor.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PressRoom/RecentPressReleases/AAPORFindsGilbertBurnhaminViolationofEthicsCode/default.htm

Iraq Body Count explaining numerous dubious implications and contradictions of the Lancet survey:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

National Journal multi-part article citing numerous experts questioning or rejecting the Lancet survey:
http://www3.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2008/0104nj1.htm

…etc. etc.

When people cite the Lancet survey as authoritative they are not just ignoring/rejecting all the other casualty sources (IBC, IFHS, ILCS, etc. etc.), they are also ignoring/rejecting the huge number of critiques above, including a large number of peer-reviewed papers on the topic.

On the other hand, where I think fallix is wrong, is in saying that all the other sources would point to a current figure of 100,000. This would be below what any source would really imply currently. The current Iraq Body Count figures (for civilians only) is about 101,426 – 110,811, but they currently note that the WikiLeaks war logs may add 15,000 further deaths to this:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs/

And thus, they suggest the civilian toll would be around 120,000 or more by now. If you look at the chart at the bottom of that link, if you add combatant deaths as well, then the numbers go over 150,000, according to IBC. (Oh, and by the way, the claim above that “the Iraq Body Count only records deaths reported in the Western media” is completely false. Read their methodology and the variety of sources they’ve used. Anyone who says this is either a liar or doesn’t know what they’re talking about.)

The Iraq Family Health survey estimated 150,000 (or a range of about 100-200,000) in 2006, so this would suggest the number is certainly higher than 100,000 by now. The central estimate was about 3 times higher than the IBC civilian figures of that time (or a range of about 2-4 times higher), so this would tend to suggest something in the range of 200-300,000 by this point.

The Iraq Living Conditions was 1.7 times the IBC civilian number of that time, so again this would correspond with something well above 100,000, probably closer to 200,000.

The Associated Press numbers cited from WikiPedia say 110,600 but does not include any deaths past April 2009, so is missing the last two years, and would therefore have to imply something at least in the 120,000 range.

The SIGACTS material leaked by WikiLeaks recorded 105,000 Iraqi deaths (civilian and combatant), but does not include 2003, 2010 or 2011, so this would also imply something well above 100,000. Combined with IBC, as in the IBC link above, it comes to about 150,000.

So while the Lancet is obviously a gross exaggeration that is inconsistent with all other sources (except the thoroughly debunked ORB poll), and the citations of it above are cherry picking, it’s also not fair to say that everything else points to a figure of 100,000. That is pushing the facts in the other direction.
- failix
  
  Thanks mike, I completely agree with you. I was rounding off the other numbers for the sake of simplicity to “around” 100 000. I should have said between 100 000 and 200 000. My point was simply that it’s far from 1 000 000, and probably not as high as 600 000, and that to single out these two estimates would be cherry picking.
  
  I just realized that Rob uses the Lancet survey at the end of this article. It would be nice if he read your post and corrected the article for the sake of accuracy… but it’s unlikely. :P
failix

Sorry but when out of 6 estimates, 4 of which have more or less the same numbers, somebody picks the one that is the least credible but has the highest number (and that is the only one to have such a high number) I call that cherry picking. If this isn’t cherry picking, I don’t know what is. The only reason for which I thought she lied is because I couldn’t believe that it’s possible to simply overlook evidence (or ignore the rest of the wikipedia page she linked to) the way she did.

@travtastic

I guess you’re one of those who read manufacturing consent and who think they’ve got it all figured out now. So what if it’s the western media? The Lancet and the ORB are part of the western media or aren’t they? What’s your criteria to differentiate between trustworthy western media and untrustworthy western media?

“wikileaks is a source from the people responsible for the invasion.”

It was a leak, so I presume the government didn’t intend to release this to the public. Unless you think wikileaks works with the government to spread propaganda on the number of deaths in Iraq. I bet if wikileaks had leaked a higher number you wouldn’t care whether or not it’s from the government.

I’d like to come back to the main subject of this article which is that Tony Blair is being accused by a bunch of “hacktivists” (and many on the left and libertarian right) of being a war criminal. I think there is no evidence to back up this claim.

I don’t particularly like Blair, I think he has betrayed many leftist values (anti-clericalism for example), but he doesn’t deserve to be called a war criminal. This happens all the time and whenever I ask for some evidence all I get is a wall of silence or lame babble about how he lied on WMD’s.
- travtastic
  
  First off, please do not conflate me with whatever vague picture you have in your head of conspiracy theorists and nihilists. I run statistical models for a living.
  
  Now:
  
  The Lancet and the ORB are part of the western media or aren’t they?
  
  The Lancet is a peer-reviewed medical journal. They’re Western media, sure, if your standards also include the Journal of Geophysical Research and the bundle of coupons in the newspaper.
  
  Sorry but when out of 6 estimates, 4 of which have more or less the same numbers, somebody picks the one that is the least credible but has the highest number (and that is the only one to have such a high number) I call that cherry picking.[My emphasis]
  
  Please back this statement about the study’s credibility with evidence. You have yet to present any, about anything. Your opinion is not scientific, and for certain does not constitute best practices.
  
  It was a leak, so I presume the government didn’t intend to release this to the public.
  
  This is not a conspiracy theory that you can pick apart. Under no circumstances are a military or government’s figures to be taken at face value, when they are the ones responsible for the deaths, either directly or indirectly. Internal releases or otherwise. What do they have to gain with accuracy, and what do they have to lose?
  
  —————-
  
  As for Blair:
  
  War of aggression [Wikipedia]
  
  Downing Street Memo [Wikipedia]
quitterjunior

Did I call it or what. Umpteen gagillion point five. Blair is a girl’s name.
failix

“Please back this statement about the study’s credibility with evidence.”

I already have. I was referring to the ORB survey, and I’ve already pointed to a peer reviewed study that discredits their estimate of 1 million in my post above, but if you insist: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties#Criticism

“Your opinion is not scientific”

I never said it was. But I try to back it with evidence and clear reasoning and I ask the same of you.

“Under no circumstances are a military or government’s figures to be taken at face value, when they are the ones responsible for the deaths, either directly or indirectly.”

Why? Your questioning of the accuracy of the government numbers is completely irrational given that these numbers coincide with those of external observers. The AP and IFHS estimates existed before the leak. You give no reason whatsoever to simply ignore the leak.
Oh and not that it really matters, but unsurprisingly the vast majority of deaths wasn’t caused by the coalition forces which are responsible for about 12% of the casualties according to this peer reviewed study (the only one I could find that does a systematic analysis of the cause of deaths in Iraq): http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/plos-2011/.

As for Blair

Even if the Iraq war was a breach of international law it wouldn’t constitute a war crime despite the fact that it involves a war and a crime. I already said this above, but a war crime strictly refers to a violation of the rules of war, and there can be no such thing when the war hasn’t started yet.

However I could grant you that under a loose definition of war crimes, you could include the initiation of a war of aggression; like the war that Hitler started, or Milosevic, or Saddam Hussein against Iran (which the US supported). But you couldn’t compare the Iraq war to these wars just because the UN didn’t allow it. Just read the casus beli for the Iraq war and compare it to that of an actual war of aggression like the war that Saddam Hussein initiated against Kuwait.
- travtastic
  
  Are you seriously complaining because we’re not saying ‘Crimes Against Peace’?
Deidzoeb

I like that they’re leaking damning info about Arizona cops and Blair, but part of me still worries about believing everything I read on the internet. How do we know that these groups are actually releasing content from the sources they claim, not making up a bunch of stuff or spicing it up a little before they release it? I guess the Arizona cops admit they were hacked, but still, Lulzsec could release emails saying “I am Arizona policeman and I eat the nipples of the moon, green cheese are good.” With how many grains of salt should we take it?
ukcannonfodder

funny how this has not once been reported on uk media, with all the rhetoric atm about hackers to justify them closing the internet down id have thought they would of jumped all over this, guess war criminals are protected ova here.
ultranaut

Julian Assange turned me gay. This is why god banned dancing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNqd4hW98sQ
Anonymous

So is the current pattern an increasing number of small groups of “hacktavists” just digging-n-dumping from any institution? (initially inspired by wikileaks) if so, i fear for any net-neutrality movement.
- yclept
  
  Anon if you think hacking has anything to do with net neutrality, then I’ve got a fish that needs a bicycle back here.