Steve Coll:

In 2007, John Kiriakou was settling into a lucrative life as a former spy. His fourteen-year career as a C.I.A. officer had included thrilling, if occasionally hazardous, tours as a specialist in counterterrorism. In Athens, in 1999 and 2000, he recruited several foreign agents to spy for the United States, and at one point was nearly assassinated by leftists. In Pakistan, in 2002, he chased Al Qaeda members, and when Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda logistics leader, was wounded and captured, Kiriakou guarded his bedside. (Kiriakou recounted many of his exploits in a colorful memoir, “The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the C.I.A.’s War on Terror.”) In 2004, he retired, and soon took a job with the accounting and consulting firm DeLoitte. He worked in the field of corporate intelligence and advised Hollywood filmmakers on the side.

At the time, the press was looking into allegations that C.I.A. officers and contractors were involved in torture, and it wasn’t long before they sought out Kiriakou for comment. For several years, the agency had managed to keep secret the scope of its abusive interrogations of Al Qaeda-affiliated prisoners, which had the formal approval of President George W. Bush. Gradually, however, investigative reporters revealed details of the interrogations, and in 2006 Bush acknowledged the existence of the C.I.A.’s detention program. The American Civil Liberties Union obtained confirming documents through the Freedom of Information Act, but what the public knew often came from journalists quoting anonymous sources.

On December 6, 2007, the Times published a story by Mark Mazzetti revealing that the C.I.A. had made classified videotapes of harsh interrogations, Abu Zubaydah’s among them. The tapes were made in 2002, but the agency destroyed them three years later. Jose Rodriguez, who then led the National Clandestine Service, had ordered the tapes destroyed, despite reservations expressed by others in the Bush Administration. . . .

Ed Wallace::

For British teenagers who fell in love with rock and roll, the 50s and early 60s were tough times. The conservative government and liberal songwriters’ union had all but conspired to keep young Brits from even hearing the new youth oriented music genre that was sweeping the globe. The BBC declined to cater to this rowdy generation, while the songwriters’ union had a rule in force that kept the BBC from playing any record more than once a day, regardless of its popularity.

To hear the hit records, kids like John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ray Davies and others had to listen to Radio Luxembourg at night, when its broadcasts could be heard in England. But this too was unsatisfactory; record labels such as EMI were buying those nighttime shows, but with the provision that only half of any song could be played. The labels thought that if the kids heard half a song and liked it, they’d be more likely to go out and purchase the record.
In 1964, led by the Beatles, the British Invasion conquered America. The irony was that it wasn’t being heard in Britain. London may have been swinging, but it wasn’t to its own music.
That sorry situation would lead to the rise of the Pirate Radio Ships, most notably at first Radio Caroline and Radio Atlanta. Anchored in international waters off the coast of England, these two ships broadcast rock and roll songs in their entirety. However, their station formats were sloppy, nothing like the Top Forty format at Dallas’ KLIF, which then controlled 45 percent of that city’s daytime listening audience. But the fact that illegal radio stations were cutting in on the BBC’s action with kids in England was big news. And in early 1964 the Wall Street Journal ran the story.

:

It’s dark, very dark indeed, with thick cloud blanking the sliver of moon. The farmhouse sits squat and black on the peak of the hill, and only the headlights reveal it as we rattle up the track. There are four of us in the Jeep and we’ve come to see something die.

In rural Spain, pigs are still killed the traditional way as part of a family event called a matanza – literally “a slaughter”. The family members would gather so that when the animal was killed, there would be enough willing hands to process everything that could be preserved, as quickly as possible. Then, the store cupboard stocked until the next killing, that which couldn’t be laid away was consumed on the spot – a brief celebration of plenty before returning to the hard life of the farm.

I’d come to Extremadura – along with Simon Mullins, co-founder of the Salt Yard Group of Spanish and Italian restaurants in London, and Ben Tish, the group’s executive chef – to watch a little piece of cultural history played out and to participate. But we’d also come to see a slaughter more real than most will ever experience. There is a natural inquisitiveness about death. There’s a moral aspect for a meat eater in connecting with the living animal that has to die for you, and there’s the challenge: how will you handle yourself? Witnessing the process has become a rite of passage for a certain kind of serious food lover, so we’d come to join a family matanza, we’d come to learn about Ibérico pigs, but, at the core of it all, we had come to see something die.

Matt Taibbi:

I went yesterday to a screening of We Steal Secrets, Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney’s brilliant new documentary about Wikileaks. The movie is beautiful and profound, an incredible story that’s about many things all at once, including the incredible Shakespearean narrative that is the life of Julian Assange, a free-information radical who has become an uncompromising guarder of secrets.

I’ll do a full review in a few months, when We Steal Secrets comes out, but I bring it up now because the whole issue of secrets and how we keep them is increasingly in the news, to the point where I think we’re headed for a major confrontation between the government and the public over the issue, one bigger in scale than even the Wikileaks episode.

We’ve seen the battle lines forming for years now. It’s increasingly clear that governments, major corporations, banks, universities and other such bodies view the defense of their secrets as a desperate matter of institutional survival, so much so that the state has gone to extraordinary lengths to punish and/or threaten to punish anyone who so much as tiptoes across the informational line.

This is true not only in the case of Wikileaks – and especially the real subject of Gibney’s film, Private Bradley Manning, who in an incredible act of institutional vengeance is being charged with aiding the enemy (among other crimes) and could, theoretically, receive a death sentence.

Did the Mainstream Media Fail Bradley Manning?

There’s also the horrific case of Aaron Swartz, a genius who helped create the technology behind Reddit at the age of 14, who earlier this year hanged himself after the government threatened him with 35 years in jail for downloading a bunch of academic documents from an MIT server. Then there’s the case of Sergey Aleynikov, the Russian computer programmer who allegedly stole the High-Frequency Trading program belonging to Goldman, Sachs (Aleynikov worked at Goldman), a program which prosecutors in open court admitted could, “in the wrong hands,” be used to “manipulate markets.”

Aleynikov spent a year in jail awaiting trial, was convicted, had his sentence overturned, was freed, and has since been re-arrested by a government seemingly determined to make an example out of him.

The Brilliant Life and Tragic Death of Aaron Swartz

Jeffrey Marlow:

The alarm clock goes off at 1:45 a.m., and no one’s particularly happy about it. Getting and staying warm in our tent at Orizaba’s 14,000-foot base camp wasn’t easy, and now it’s time to venture into the cold.

I’m in southern Mexico, on the flanks of the continent’s third tallest mountain, preparing for a summit attempt with fellow climbers Patrick Sanan, Joel Scheingross, and Josh Zahl. We had left the oxygen-dense altitudes of southern California just two days earlier, and I was skeptical of my body’s ability to handle such a quick displacement to Orizaba’s 18,500-foot summit. But the sky was clear and everyone was feeling good: there was no time to waste.

Climbing ice-capped mountains in the middle of the night makes practical sense – getting up, down, and off the glacier before the afternoon sun loosens rocks and renders the slope a slippery waterslide is a good idea – but it also has psychological allure. If you can’t see the peak looming over you, you’re forced to focus on each step, unburdened by the hours of climbing to come. And it’s a lot easier to delude yourself into thinking you’re almost there.

Carmen Nobel
:

“I tell my students that they’ll get a better framework in this 14-week course than I got in 14 years at the school of hard knocks,” Huber says. “General Motors spent a billion dollars on my tuition. That was the negative cash flow we invested in OnStar before it turned profitable.”

The HBS Class of 1979 produced a raft of high-profile executives, including Meg Whitman, president and CEO of Hewlett-Packard; Dan Bricklin, co-creator of the VisiCalc spreadsheet program; John Thain, chairman and CEO of CIT Group; Elaine L. Chao, the 24th US Secretary of Labor; and, fortuitously, Clay Christensen, the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at HBS, and the world’s foremost authority on disruptive innovation.

“Clay was always that guy in class who would say these off-the-wall things, and we’d say to ourselves, ‘That was either really brilliant or really stupid,’ but we couldn’t figure out which one,” Huber recalls. “And of course they were all brilliant. But unfortunately for most of us normal humans, we never wrote them down. We could have stolen his ideas back then, but we didn’t know they’d become famous.”

After graduation, Huber didn’t expect their career paths to cross again. But several years later, Christensen would realize that the OnStar story was a great example of navigating innovation within a large company.

Business Week:

As part of its anniversary celebration, BusinessWeek is presenting a series of weekly profiles of the greatest innovators of the past 75 years. Some made their mark in science or technology; others in management, finance, marketing, or government. In late September, 2004, BusinessWeek will publish a special commemorative issue on Innovation.

Frederick W. Smith, founder of FedEx Corp. (FDX

), has transportation in his blood. His grandfather was a steamboat captain, and his father built from scratch a regional bus line that became the Southern backbone of the Greyhound Bus system. Smith learned to fly as a teenager, a skill he turned to cash by working weekends as a charter pilot during his years as a student at Yale University in the 1960s. While flying students and other passengers around, Smith had the insight that led him to revolutionize the delivery business. He noticed that he was also frequently ferrying spare parts for computer companies such as IBM (IBM

) that didn’t want to wait for the passenger airlines to get critical components to customers.

Izabella Kaminska:

This won’t be popular.

But it’s an important alternative to the “it’s expropriation” view on Cyprus.

While the decision to force a bank levy on depositors creates an important precedent, it also represents something much more complex than pure confiscation or forfeiture. It’s certainly not expropriation in the communist or command economy sense, that’s for sure.

In fact, I’d argue that what it really represents is the inevitable shift away from a debt funded economy to an equity funded one.

That’s not to say the shift has been managed fairly or logically. I’m with Willem Buiter on the point that it would have been better if small island depositors had been spared. But I’m also with him on the point that this is ultimately a step in the right direction.

It all comes down to the need to capitalise failing banks with equity, and to get creditors taking responsibility for their bad investments.

Patroclos:

OUR EU partners did actually refer to this product of blackmail as a rescue package. This rescue package will drive away all international business from Kyproulla, drastically reduce our GDP and possibly trigger a run on the banks as soon they open on Tuesday.

Of course things would be 10 times worse without the package because the collapse of the banks would be a certainty, the haircut of bank deposits would be in the region of 70 per cent and the state would have no money to pay the poor public parasites.

But this is the option most of our political parties seem to prefer if yesterday’s statements by deputies were anything to go by. So there is the likelihood that when deputies are called to vote on the haircut bill today they will reject the trim thus paving the way for a number one.

Someone should inform them that it is not the Annan plan they would be voting for, because in this case heroic resistance would come at a very high price. The choice is not between change and keeping things as they are – it is between disaster and annihilation, which is a bit of no-brainer.

Anna Scott:

“New technologies have made it easier for governments, businesses and civil society to collect data, share information, target resources, provide feedback and measure progress”, writes Judith Randel from the research centre Development Initiatives. “Information can help to build trust between governments and citizens, allowing people to exercise their rights, hold decision makers to account, reduce corruption and make more informed choices in their daily lives.”

But for people in developing countries to benefit from information in this way, they need to be able to access it and empowered to use it. The responsibility of providing access often falls to the development community, but is enough being done to turn access into knowledge, and knowledge into power?

Progress is being made, as more initiatives emerge that aim to bring data to those in the field. But while such projects are empowering those they can reach, what about those they can’t? In a recent live chat on beneficiaries-led development, Linda Raftree, a senior adviser at Plan International emphasised that the marginalised should not be forgotten. “Many factors will [determine] who participates and how they participate, including disability, literacy and language abilities. Open data or technology enabled participation systems must be designed with this in mind”, she says.