tamilnadu location and direction's in degre's

Location	Latitude	Longitude
Adirampattinam	10° 21' N	79° 25' E
Ambasamudram	8° 43' N	77° 29' E
Ambur	21° 50' N	78° 45' E
Anaimalai Hills	10° 24' N	76° 40' E
Arakkonam	13° 05' N	79° 43' E
Arantangi	10° 10' N	79° 02' E
Arcot	12° 56' N	79° 24' E
Arni	12° 40' N	79° 19' E
Aruppukkotai	9° 31' N	78° 08' E
Attur	11° 36' N	78° 39' E
Atur	10° 16' N	77° 53' E
Bodinayakkanur	10° 01' N	77° 24' E
Calimere, Point	10° 18' N	79° 52' E
Carnatic	12° 00' N	80° 00' E
Chidambaram	11° 24' N	79° 44' E
Chingleput	12° 42' N	80° 01' E
Coimbatore	11° 00' N	77° 00' E
Comorin, C.	8° 04' N	77° 36' E
Coromandel Coast	12° 00' N	80° 30' E
Cuddalore	11° 43' N	79° 49' E
Devakottai	9° 57' N	78° 53' E
Dhanushkodi	9° 10' N	79° 28' E
Dharapuram	10° 45' N	77° 34' E
Dharmapuri	12° 08' N	78° 13' E
Dindigul	10° 22' N	78° 00' E
Dodabetta. Mt.	11° 25' N	76° 46' E
Ennore	13° 14' N	80° 22' E
Erode	11° 20' N	77° 46' E
Fort St David	11° 45' N	79° 50' E
Fort St George	13° 04' N	80° 17' E
Gudiyatam	12° 57' N	78° 55' E
Hospur	12° 44' N	77° 52' E
Jalarpet	12° 34' N	78° 37' E
Javadi hills	12° 40' N	78° 40' E
Kanchipuram	12° 50' N	79° 45' E
Karur	10° 58' N	78° 07' E
Kaveri R.	11° 20' N	77° 50' E
Kayalpatnam	8° 34' N	78° 10' E
Kilakarai	9° 14' N	78° 50' E
Kodaikanal	10° 13' N	77° 32' E
Krishnagiri	12° 32' N	78° 16' E
Kumbakonam	10° 58' N	79° 25' E
Madras (Chennai)	13° 04' N	80° 17' E
Madurai	9° 58' N	78° 10' E
Madurantakam	12° 30' N	79° 56' E
Mahabalipuram	12° 37' N	80° 14' E
Mannargudi	10° 40' N	79° 29' E
Mayuram	11° 06' N	79° 42' E
Mettupalaiyam	11° 18' N	76° 59' E
Mettur Dam	11° 52' N	77° 50' E
Nagarjunasagar Dam	16° 50' N	79° 20' E
Nagercoil	8° 11' N	77° 29' E
Namakkal	11° 13 ' N	78° 13' E
Nanguneri	8° 29' N	77° 44' E
Neiveli	10° 31' N	79° 24' E
Pachaimalai Hills	11° 15' N	78° 3 ' E
Padmanabhapuram	9° 06' N	76° 5 ' E
Palayankottal	8° 43' N	77° 46 ' E
Palladam	10° 59' N	77° 2 ' E
Pallavaram	12° 58' N	80° 13 ' E
Pallivasal	9° 55' N	77°00' E
Palni Hills	10° 00' N	77° 00' E
Panruti	11° 47' N	79° 35 ' E
Paramakkudi	9° 31' N	78° 39 ' E
Pattukkottal	10° 26' N	79° 22 ' E
Perambalur	11° 14' N	78° 56 ' E
Periyakulam	10° 07' N	77° 35 ' E
Pollachi	10° 39' N	77° 03 ' E
Ponneri	13° 2' N	80° 15 ' E
Porto Novo	11° 3' N	79° 48 ' E
Pudukkottal	10° 23' N	78° 52 ' E
Pulicat, L.	13° 25' N	80° 21 ' E
Rajapalayam	9° 27' N	77° 36 ' E
Ramanathapuram	9° 22' N	78° 52 ' E
Rameswaram	9° 17' N	79° 22 ' E
Salem	11° 39' N	78° 12 ' E
Sankaranayinarkovil	9° 1' N	77° 35 ' E
Sattur	9° 21' N	77° 58 ' E
Satyamangalam	11° 3' N	77° 17 ' E
Seven Pagodas	12° 37' N	80° 14 ' E
shencottah	8° 59' N	77° 18 ' E
shevaroy Hills	12' N	78° 3 ' E
St. Thomas Mount	13' N	80° 14 ' E
Tenkasi	8° 58' N	77° 21' E
Thanjavur (Tanjore)	10° 47' N	79° 10' E
Tindivanam	12° 14' N	79° 42' E
Tiruchchirappalli	10° 50' N	78° 46' E
Tiruchendur	8° 30' N	78° 11' E
Tiruchengodu	11° 23' N	77° 56' E
Tirukkoyilur	11° 58' N	79° 15' E
Tirumangalam	9° 49' N	79° 01' E
Tirunelveli	8° 44' N	77° 44' E
Tiruppur	11° 05' N	77° 20' E
Tiruvallur	13° 09' N	79° 57' E
Tiruvannamalai	12° 15' N	79° 07' E
Tondi	9° 45' N	79° 04' E
Tranquebar	11° 01' N	79° 54' E
Turaiyur	11° 09' N	78° 38' E
Tuticorin	8° 48' N	78° 11' E
Udagamandalam	11° 24' N	76° 44' E
Udamalpet	10° 36' N	77° 17' E
Udiyarpalaiyam	11° 11' N	79° 20' E
Uttangarai	12° 16' N	78° 35' E
Vaniyambadi	12° 41' N	78° 39' E
Vellore	12° 55' N	79° 11' E
Villupuram	11° 57' N	79° 32' E
Virudhunagar	9° 35' N	77° 57' E
Vriddhachalam	11° 32' N	79° 24' E
Wandiwash	12° 30' N	79° 30' E
Yercaud	11° 48' N	78° 13' E

INDIAN Cyber Laws dual phases

2 Sides of INDIAN Cyber Law or IT Act of INDIA
 

Cyber laws are meant to set the definite pattern, some rules and guidelines that defined certain business activities going on through internet legal and certain illegal and hence punishable . The IT Act 2000, the cyber law of India , gives the legal framework so that information is not denied legal effect, validity or enforceability, solely on the ground that it is in the form of electronic records.
One cannot regard government as complete failure in shielding numerous e-commerce activities on the firm basis of which this industry has got to its skies, but then the law cannot be regarded as free from ambiguities.
MMS porn case in which the CEO of bazee.com(an Ebay Company) was arrested for allegedly selling the MMS clips involving school children on its website is the most apt example in this reference. Other cases where the law becomes hazy in its stand includes the case where the newspaper Mid-Daily published the pictures of the Indian actor kissing her boyfriend at the Bombay nightspot and the arrest of Krishan Kumar for illegally using the internet account of Col. (Retd.) J.S. Bajwa.
The IT Act 2000 attempts to change outdated laws and provides ways to deal with cyber crimes. Let’s have an overview of the law where it takes a firm stand and has got successful in the reason for which it was framed.
1. The E-commerce industry carries out its business via transactions and communications done through electronic records . It thus becomes essential that such transactions be made legal . Keeping this point in the consideration, the IT Act 2000 empowers the government departments to accept filing, creating and retention of official documents in the digital format. The Act also puts forward the proposal for setting up the legal framework essential for the authentication and origin of electronic records / communications through digital signature.
2. The Act legalizes the e-mail and gives it the status of being valid form of carrying out communication in India . This implies that e-mails can be duly produced and approved in a court of law , thus can be a regarded as substantial document to carry out legal proceedings.
3. The act also talks about digital signatures and digital records . These have been also awarded the status of being legal and valid means that can form strong basis for launching litigation in a court of law. It invites the corporate companies in the business of being Certifying Authorities for issuing secure Digital Signatures Certificates.
4. The Act now allows Government to issue notification on the web thus heralding e-governance.
5. It eases the task of companies of the filing any form, application or document by laying down the guidelines to be submitted at any appropriate office, authority, body or agency owned or controlled by the government. This will help in saving costs, time and manpower for the corporates.
6. The act also provides statutory remedy to the coporates in case the crime against the accused for breaking into their computer systems or network and damaging and copying the data is proven. The remedy provided by the Act is in the form of monetary damages, not exceeding Rs. 1 crore($200,000).
7. Also the law sets up the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officers for cyber crimes and the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal.
8. The law has also laid guidelines for providing Internet Services on a license on a non-exclusive basis.
The IT Law 2000, though appears to be self sufficient, it takes mixed stand when it comes to many practical situations. It looses its certainty at many places like:
1. The law misses out completely the issue of Intellectual Property Rights, and makes no provisions whatsoever for copyrighting, trade marking or patenting of electronic information and data. The law even doesn’t talk of the rights and liabilities of domain name holders , the first step of entering into the e-commerce.
2. The law even stays silent over the regulation of electronic payments gateway and segregates the negotiable instruments from the applicability of the IT Act , which may have major effect on the growth of e-commerce in India . It leads to make the banking and financial sectors irresolute in their stands .
3. The act empowers the Deputy Superintendent of Police to look up into the investigations and filling of charge sheet when any case related to cyber law is called. This approach is likely to result in misuse in the context of Corporate India as companies have public offices which would come within the ambit of "public place" under the Act. As a result, companies will not be able to escape potential harassment at the hands of the DSP.
4. Internet is a borderless medium ; it spreads to every corner of the world where life is possible and hence is the cyber criminal. Then how come is it possible to feel relaxed and secured once this law is enforced in the nation??
The Act initially was supposed to apply to crimes committed all over the world, but nobody knows how can this be achieved in practice , how to enforce it all over the world at the same time???
* The IT Act is silent on filming anyone’s personal actions in public and then distributing it electronically. It holds ISPs (Internet Service Providers) responsible for third party data and information, unless contravention is committed without their knowledge or unless the ISP has undertaken due diligence to prevent the contravention .
* For example, many Delhi based newspapers advertise the massage parlors; and in few cases even show the ‘therapeutic masseurs’ hidden behind the mask, who actually are prostitutes. Delhi Police has been successful in busting out a few such rackets but then it is not sure of the action it can take…should it arrest the owners and editors of newspapers or wait for some new clauses in the Act to be added up?? Even the much hyped case of the arrest of Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com, was a consequence of this particular ambiguity of the law. One cannot expect an ISP to monitor what information their subscribers are sending out, all 24 hours a day.
Cyber law is a generic term, which denotes all aspects, issues and the legal consequences on the Internet, the World Wide Web and cyber space. India is the 12th nation in the world that has cyber legislation apart from countries like the US, Singapore, France, Malaysia and Japan .
But can the cyber laws of the country be regarded as sufficient and secure enough to provide a strong platform to the country’s e-commerce industry for which they were meant?? India has failed to keep in pace with the world in this respect, and the consequence is not far enough from our sight; most of the big customers of India ’s outsourcing company have started to re-think of carrying out their business in India .Bajaj’s case has given the strongest blow in this respect and have broken India ’s share in outsourcing market as a leader.
If India doesn’t want to loose its position and wishes to stay as the world’s leader forever in outsourcing market, it needs to take fast but intelligent steps to cover the glaring loopholes of the Act, or else the day is not far when the scenario of India ruling the world’s outsourcing market will stay alive in the dreams only as it will be overtaken by its competitors.

trendsetter: The Truth about the "MAYAN APOCALYPSE"

trendsetter: The Truth about the "MAYAN APOCALYPSE": The agency's Near-Earth Objects Program head points out many fallacies, including the claim that an imaginary planet will collide with Ear...

The Truth about the "MAYAN APOCALYPSE"

The agency's Near-Earth Objects Program head points out many fallacies, including the claim that an imaginary planet will collide with Earth in December. Thousands of astronomers have not seen this.

 

2012 Doomsday Debunked Their calendar does not end on December 21, 2012; it's just the end of the cycle and the beginning of a new one. Image: Space.com

Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have put out a new video to address false claims about the "Mayan apocalypse," a non-event that some people believe will bring the world to an end on Dec. 21. 

In the video, which was posted online Wednesday (Mar. 7), Don Yeoman’s, head of the Near-Earth Objects Program Office at NASA/JPL, explains away many of the most frequently cited doomsday scenarios. Addressing the belief that the calendar used by the ancient Mayan civilization comes to a sudden end in December 2012, and that this will coincide with a cataclysmic, world-ending event, Yeoman’s said: "Their calendar does not end on December 21, 2012; it's just the end of the cycle and the beginning of a new one. It's just like on December 31, our calendar comes to an end, but a new calendar begins on January 1."

Yeoman’s also attempted to allay fears regarding potential causes of a Mayan apocalypse, including Nibiru, an imaginary planet that some people think is swinging in from the outer solar system just in time to collide with Earth in December. "This enormous planet is supposed to be coming toward Earth, but if it were, we would have seen it long ago. And if it were invisible somehow, we would have seen the [gravitational] effects of this planet on neighboring planets. Thousands of astronomers who scan the sky on a daily basis have not seen this," he said.

He added that there is zero possibility of a NASA cover-up. "Can you imagine thousands of astronomers who observe the skies on a daily basis keeping the same secret from the public for several years?"

A TALK ABOUT WORLD END

Hi friends what are you thinking about the solar storm, which all the scientist are discussing that world going to be end at 2012


give your comment through mail/comment!!

The documentry about wikileaks

JULLIAN ASSANGE

30 November 2011, 19:20 GMT

The Guardian has continued its war on WikiLeaks with three new attacks over 48 hours—five days before Julian Assange’s final extradition appeal judgement in the High Court and a UK Parliamentary debate and vote on extradition abuses (both Monday, December 5).

While it is often counter-productive to divert resources to dealing with PR attacks head-on, we provide here a revealing window into the behind-the-scenes realities that WikiLeaks has to deal with every day as a result of its high profile. While many attacks come from "traditional" enemies — the organizations WikiLeaks has exposed — others come from opportunists trying to work an easy socio-political sector — apparently saying what they believe these powerful enemies would like to be said, in the hope of preferment or relief in other areas. Others still, in fear of their reputations or the legal process, seek to whitewash past opportunism before natural moral or legal redress.

It should be noted that while WikiLeaks has many supporters among Guardian journalists, the editor (Alan Rusbridger)’s brother in law, David Leigh, cannot in practice be prevented from abusing the Guardian’s resources and reputation.

• On November 29 2011: ’The Guardian Documentary’ WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies’ which aired yesterday at 10pm GMT
• On November 29 2011: The Guardian´s Nick Davies makes libelous statements to the official inquiry investigating the Phone Hacking scandal-about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.
• On November 30 2011: junior Guardian employee and David Leigh assistant (James Ball) releases a hostile book about WikiLeaks

1. On November 29 2011: ’The Guardian Documentary’ - ’WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies’ More4

The documentary aired yesterday is known to film makers in the industry as "The Guardian Documentary":

• The director, Patrick Forbes, has admitted that chief Guardian antagonist David Leigh was a consultant for the film, and did "timetabling" and "fact checking". Leigh has been on a year long offensive against WikiLeaks in order to save himself from being sued over deliberately breaching every security condition of the Cablegate contract. In a letter to WikiLeaks Patrick Forbes stated that the audience would not be told of David Leigh’s role. The film avoids mentioning the contract or the ongoing legal dispute.
• The Guardian has been paid for participating in the film in an exclusive deal. WikiLeaks has not. In a letter to WikiLeaks Patrick Forbes stated that "These are matters [payment to the Guardian, Leigh’s production involvement] that are simply not relevant for the audience to know."
• The Guardian was given preview privileges for the documentary whereas WikiLeaks was refused such access to fact-check.
• The documentary interviews eight WikiLeaks critics-five from the Guardian, but only one person from WikiLeaks, and none from over 90 other organizations who have worked with WikiLeaks, with the exception of two brief interviews with Der Spiegel.

Content:

The documentary was presented to WikiLeaks as focusing on the WikiLeaks material, its impact, and Bradley Manning. WikiLeaks’ participation was premised on this being the case. The promo by contrast did not name Bradley Manning, and claimed to be ’The definitive account of the ’wiki-saga’, featuring the first major television interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The film unites all the major protagonists for the first time’. Julian Assange made a five-hour long interview. We were not given viewing privileges, despite requesting it. But the Guardian was. Luke Harding from the Guardian previewed it on 27 November 2011 and said on Twitter "Just watched new Channel 4 documentary on #Wikileaks. It’s lucid, engrossing and balanced. Recommend. via @C4Press", and James Ball from the Guardian tweeted that he had seen it on the 27th of November 2011.

WikiLeaks was misled as to the true purpose of the Guardian documentary. Contrary to its stated purpose, the documentary:

• Completely blacks out crucial facts, such as the fact that WikiLeaks suspended publications due to an unlawful arbitrary banking blockade that prevents donors from supporting the organisation. The banking blockade is not even mentioned, neither is the ongoing, documented in the public record, legal harassment of WikiLeaks volunteers by US authorities.
• In aggregate, the documentary features Julian Assange speaking for 8 minutes 50 seconds (including a 20 second silence on camera), whereas The Guardian’s five employees are given 29 minutes and 30 seconds. This does not include the time given to three other WikiLeaks critics. No WikiLeaks supporting interviews are aired.
• Contrary to what director Patrick Forbes told Julian Assange over the telephone, the film does not explain that David Leigh broke a written agreement and revealed a secret decryption key, which led to the publishing of the unredacted cables. Patrick Forbes said over telephone that the interview was made prior to the "fuss over the password". Instead, David Leigh holds up the paper, calls it a "souvenir" and reads it out to the camera.
• Gives Julian Assange no right to reply libelous statements such as "Afghan informers deserve to die". Nick Davies was not present at the conversation described, and John Goertz and Holger Stark from Der Spiegel can attest that they have no notes or recollection of Julian Assange saying this and would have recalled if he had claimed such a position.
• Completely obscures the fact that David Leigh was responsible for the publication of the unredacted cables, and says that this was an incomprehensible and reprehensible decision made by WikiLeaks.
• Does not disclose that David Leigh violated a written legal agreement between WikiLeaks and The Guardian that the material would not be passed to third parties (The New York Times), published before the publishing date, or be kept in an insecure manner. David Leigh has admitted that he deliberately went behind the editor (and his brother-in-law) Alan Rusbridger’s back to break the agreement, inorder to try to avoid liability for breach of contract, in a case study by Columbia University: http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteince...
• Nick Davies makes extraordinary allegations about Julian Assange. He says that he is untruthful but does not say with reference to what. He also makes extraordinary allegations about the Swedish investigation, suggesting that Julian Assange has lied - this in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, with reference to events in which Nick Davies was not present and does not explain. Julian Assange is unable to speak about the legal investigation against him. The allegations Davies refers to about US involvement are taken entirely out of context: Julian Assange was talking about the irregularities relating to the investigation in Sweden. David Leigh also makes tasteless comments about Mr. Assange, calling his sexual behaviour "incontinent".
• Is unethical and prejudicial to Julian Assange because it spends an inordinate amount of time on an ongoing criminal investigation without interviewing anyone with the authority to provide a background, explain or discuss the controversy in Sweden. From all the lawyers, prosecutors and experts involved in the case, from both sides, not a single one was interviewed. Instead, pathetically, the documentary shows a video of the accused dancing in Iceland while a journalist who was not there claims Julian Assange has been untruthful.
• Incorrectly describes Daniel Domscheit-Berg as WikiLeaks spokesperson. WikiLeaks’ representative is Mr. Kristinn Hrafnsson, who the director did not even request to interview. Domscheit-Berg was suspended in 2010, and was a volunteer assistant and sometimes spokesperson for WikiLeaks Germany, particularly during 2009. He was not, ever, as the documentary claims, a programmer.
• Daniel Domscheit-Berg is interviewed as a critic of WikiLeaks, but no attention is given to the role he has played in a) stealing funds, sabotaging the organisation b) deleting (according to his account) thousands of submissions revealing war crimes and corruption in finance institutions, profiteering and unleashing the chain of events that led to the publishing of the unredacted diplomatic cables.

Ten days before the documentary aired, and as a result of WikiLeaks receiving information from various friends in the industry that a ’Guardian documentary was being made’, Julian Assange phoned Patrick Forbes, the director of the documentary, to seek reassurances that this was not the case. The promo text falsely stated that Sweden was Julian Assange’s home country. Julian Assange was told that the promo text was a Channel 4 PR product, and that it was misleading. During the course of the conversation with Patrick Forbes and the correspondence that followed, it became clear that the documentary did not comply with the conditions that were set out by Patrick Forbes when WikiLeaks was approached. David Leigh promoted the documentary on Twitter on 18 November 2010 "Lies exposed? First major #Assange documentary to air on C4 this month is called "#Wikileaks: secrets and lies".

In a letter to Patrick Forbes written the day after the telephone conversation, Julian Assange writes:

"The collaboration offered to you, and the footage that arises from it, which we provided to you, and the interview between myself and you, was granted only under the terms you proffered, chiefly:

’We are setting out to make a definitive factual account of the WikiLeaks affair. It will focus on the core of the story, the substance, contact and impact of the Iraq, Afghan and diplomatic [c]ables, rather than the way in which the media and others have handled them, or any unrelated legal proceedings.... We are also closely following Manning’s treatment, his case and how it is being handled, assessing whether he is or will be able to have a fair trial or is being treated in a humane way during his confinement.’

It was on this basis that I agreed to entertain collaboration with your film project for free. This collaboration, taken at market rates, is worth between fifty [and] three hundred thousand pounds. However your promises as to what the documentary was to be about are at odds with the Channel 4 promotional description of the film. The natural reading of this, given the only partial correction of the statement, is that the Channel 4 summary is an accurate description of the film, and that you have deceptively described it to me and Sunshine Press Productions to gain our involvement and and access to me and to footage at below market rates.

In the pre-interview meeting with you and Tilly, for which we have second by second contemporaneous notes, you reconfirmed this statement, saying you were looking at the US assassination squad I discovered, Task Force 373, and were trying to locate its members, that the film would not cover Sweden, that the film was "more on the effect of publishing than on the production", and so on.

These promises are also at odds with the promo text issued by Channel 4."

Julian Assange suspended his collaboration and expressed his wish to not feature in the documentary given what he had learned from the phone conversation. The letter and the response are attached. Julian Assange writes: "during our telephone call yesterday, you made the following admissions:


a. That David Leigh, a reporter from the Guardian, was an made an adviser to the film, by you and that this fact was not disclosed to me. As you are aware this organisation, and myself personally, are locked into various disputes with Leigh, who, as you are aware, deliberately and secretly broke our Cablegate contract, and who, as you are aware, has engaged in a great many tawdry plots and libels in an attempt to destroy WikiLeaks.


b. That David Leigh and other hostile Guardian personalities, such as Nick Davies and Alan Rusbridger were paid monies, directly, or indirectly, by you, for their "involvement".

c. That these facts would not be revealed to the audience.

In making these statements, it is clear you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Namely, that either Leigh et al. were paid members of the production, in which case the the film has no credibility, or that you paid for their interviews through slight of hand, in which case you have engaged in chequebook journalism. A third possibility is that you funnelled production money to senior people in the Guardian hierarchy to maintain patronage. Regardless, to intentionally conceal these payments and associations from the audience is a disgrace. Additionally, David Leigh, James Ball, Alan Rusbridger, and other Guardian personalities are either selling or have sold libellous books, life rights or film options about me and/or WikiLeaks. Have these and other pecuniary interests and legal conflicts been detailed to the audience?

I note that despite the film revolving around my work, which now suffers an unlawful banking blockade by US financial companies, no payments were made to me, by you. This asymmetry, where the worst type of opportunists are paid, by you, and where the people who have actually taken most of the risks and done most of the work, are not, is striking.

As a result, until I can be assured that the film, and the Channel 4 promo, is accurate and meets terms under which my agreement and the agreement of Sunshine Press Productions was given, namely that, ""We are setting out to make a definitive factual account of the wikileaks affair. It will focus on the core of the story, the substance, contact and impact of the Iraq, Afghan and diplomatic [c]ables, rather than the way in which the media and others have handled them, or any unrelated legal proceedings.... We are also closely following Manning’s treatment, his case and how it is being handled, assessing whether he is or will be able to have a fair trial or is being treated in a humane way during his confinement." I must suspend all agreements."

2. On November 29 2011: At the Leveson inquiry which is investigating the phone hacking scandal, Nick Davies from The Guardian spoke to The Leveson inquiry about ethics and the media. He opportunistically used this platform to attack WikiLeaks with false, second-hand information about a conversation in which he was not present. He says Julian Assange said that Afghan informers deserved to die. Two other journalists who were present, John Goertz and Holger Stark from Der Spiegel, can attest that this is not what was said.

For reportage on what Nick Davies told the Leveson inquiry, see the transcript (http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp...)).

3. On November 30 2011: New Guardian book. David Leigh’s student and close friend (James Ball), was seconded to WikiLeaks from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for two months (Dec 2010, Jan 2011). He did not return to the Bureau, but rather, accepted a job assisting Leigh at the Guardian (offer made during Dec 2010). Leigh’s assistant will publish yet another book about our organization on Nov 30. After starting work for Leigh, the assistant has written numerous hostile, false, articles which often seem to directed at saving Leigh’s reputation.

Below:

• The original C4 documentary promo write-up, which differs from the one now online because: it does not mention Bradley Manning, and claims that Mr. Assange’s home country is Sweden.
• Excerpts from phone conversation between Julian Assange and Patrick Forbes, director of Channel 4’s documentary "WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies" (16 November 2011)
• Letter from Julian Assange to Patrick Forbes detailing complaints (17 November 2011)
• Response from Patrick Forbes to Julian Assange (18 November 2011)

• The original C4 documentary promo write-up

WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies

The definitive account of the ’wiki-saga’, featuring the first major television interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The film unites all the major protagonists for the first time, including Assange’s erstwhile partner Daniel Domscheit Berg, and the editorial teams at the Guardian, Der Spiegel and New York Times newspapers, as well as the US state department spokesperson who had to deal with the leaks. When Assange launched his whistle-blower website he was heralded as a hero, bravely publishing classified material to highlight government wrongdoings to its peoples.

He won awards around the world and was credited with creating a historic moment for journalism. But the story took a dark twist when Assange was accused of rape and sexual assault in his home country of Sweden. Award-winning film-maker Patrick Forbes presents the story of Wikileaks, using the words of people at the heart of the story, and on both sides of the fence.

This is the story of Wikieaks told by the people involved: sulphurous, personal and moving, it documents history in the making and the frontier of new technology and journalism. It’s also a story of human emotions clashing with the advent of new technologies, summed up in the words of Guardian journalist Nick Davies as ’a Greek tragedy... as triumph was turned into disaster through the actions of one man.’ True Stories commissions and showcases the best international feature documentaries.