Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock for the last two weeks, you’ve of course heard of WikiLeaks and their pledge to show us the president’s underwear or some such nonsense. Eager to avoid guys with crew cuts carrying subpoenas, major online companies such as Amazon and PayPal have been unceremoniously denying their services to WikiLeaks. It’s a dick move on their part, but hey, I get it. In response, users worldwide are uniting under the “Operation Payback” banner and volunteering their computers into a botnet used for Denial of Service attacks on whomever they deem deserving. Frankly, it sounds pretty childish to me, but they get bonus points for calling the client software “Low Orbit Ion Cannon”.
But is it that childish? Unhappy constituents are free to stage protests (well, in most countries they are). Disgruntled (and even gruntled) workers form picket lines during strikes. Perhaps we should celebrate the fact that even in the face of Net Neutrality looking like a trainwreck, and ACTA looking like a drunken stepfather, consumers still outnumber corporations and can rise as a group to make themselves heard in ways that are hard to ignore. DDoS attacks are nothing new, but this may be the first time we’ve seen people voluntarily join a botnet en masse.
Are these attacks a legitimate form of protest, or will they just serve to legitimize corporate policy and further undermine the reputation of the “pirates”?
["User Input" is the AtomicToasters Question of the Day™ asking you, the teeming millions, to answer our pressing questions.]
Like everything about the Wikileaks saga, I am of many minds about the "Operation: Payback." Concept. Anytime I find myself leaning towards agreeing with /b/ I have to reevaluate my own mindset. What do I really think here?
I think I want this to go forward fairly. If Wikileaks members (and Assange is not the only name we will eventually learn) are prosecuted fairly, and within the restrictions of our own laws, I will be happy. If true reform happens from any of the Wikileaks data I will be happy. While I am not so sure that the State Department cables are actually damaging to any real extent, I do look forward to the releases that will touch on Russian support of crime within its borders, and any information that brings us inside one of the major banks in this country.
The "hacking" (I use this term as loosely as possible, as the level of skill used here is virtually none, and making the direct comparison is like strapping ice skates on a dog and calling it "figure skating") that is going on really isn't doing any damage. Visa and Mastercard had outages on their primary domains, but customer transactions and data were unaffected. It is unlikely that anyone knows of a single domain that would affect operations for those companies. Paypal crashed and burned only on a specific URL, with the same data available by using HTTPS in your browser's bar. Rumors have it that the people leading the charge in 4Chan have recognized this, and are switching tactics:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/09/anonymous-st…
On a more personal note, I use Amazon and Paypal for many things, and I appreciate both companies as partners in helping me buy what I want, and both companies hold a solid reputation to me. I like them.
I don't like that they caved to government pressure, but is that their fault? Can I blame them? Who knows what exactly the pressure was? They do have businesses to run after all.
Amazon in particular failed in maintaining their own policy, as they defended the right for a man to publish a book containing details on child molestation as a first amendment issue on their site. They then remove Wikileaks from hosting on the same grounds…
I don't know. I mean really… So much going on here. Like many, I wait on the sidelines watching how it plays out…
I have no real problem with it, mostly because it doesn't affect me. Sure, we are living in a interconnected world now, but, meh. I got other fish to fry.
The attacks are not legitimate, in the same way that compromising net neutrality is not legitimate.
Instead of interfering with web traffic and freedom of the press, someone who obtains documents illegally should be prosecuted for obtaining documents illegally.
And if you are embarrassed by internal memos, I believe it points to larger problems within your organization.
Thank you for reminding me to write letters and emails tonight.
Childishness on all sides is why we get nice things taken away.
If something is classified and you deliberately divulge said classified material as a citizen it is treason, plain and simple. People used to get hung for that.
If you are not a citizen it is espionage. People used to get hung for that too.
Embarrassment and undermining support of governments is a tactic as old as war itself. It's called sabotage. Guess what used to happen to saboteurs? Yup, Hemp neck-tie.
The line from righteous whistle-blower to self-righteous saboteur has been crossed, thanks to the inevitable power grab that follows success. I now consider Ass-mange to be someone out to hurt me and my country.
When knowledge of the inner working of government are made available to every village idiot, every village idiot will try to control the government. To wit, the DoS attacks. THINK before you jump on a highly charged cause-bandwagon. Eventually the evangelist turns on even his most ardent supporters when they quit buying what he's selling. Then it's a little too late to change sides.
Actually that's not treason. The act of getting the documents to Wikileaks could be construed as treason, however after they have them, it's classic Freedom of the Press. That's exactly and specifically what that right and protection was set up for.
Had there been no secure "secret" communications between governments and embassies, the Earth would have been a cinder decades ago. It was secret messages between the US and USSR that defused the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Something for the would-be "truthmongers" to consider.
You may be right that leaders would rather be blown up than embarrassed, but I still believe secrecy goes in the wrong direction.
If it weren't for all those secret communications in the first place, the Cuban Missile Crisis would not have happened at all.
If it weren't for all those people, there'd be no secret communications. Welcome to humanity. I'm sure the distant ancestors in Cave A were whispering bad things about those not-so-nice people in Cave B, and plots were afoot between Cave A and Cave C to do them in.
It's normal to have positive or negative opinions of other individuals. But when you allow these opinions to become official policy, or labels for an entire group, posturing can speak louder than any actions by your diplomatic corp. We treat people the way we expect to be treated. Rationally, people can deal honestly with those they expect to be honest, while they may deal dishonestly with those they consider dishonest. Your reputation and expectations can be self fulfilling prophesies.
This is definitely an interesting form of protest and it should be celebrated that we have found new powerful ways of voicing consumer contention. I am only concerned that these botnets could grow too quickly and lose control [as growing rebellions so often do]. If things go bad, pirates will continue to be pirates and likely just prove that subversive efforts rarely achieve their end-goal or any goal for that matter.
As for the Wikileaks controversy, I initially backed Assange with the whole rebel-fighter/ freedom of speech pretense but then, like RSDeuce, I am forced to step back for a moment when my stance is questioned. I watch news channels like FOX among others throw around vindictive words like 'terrorist' and 'treason' when discussing Assange and his exploits, unsure as to what degree the truth has been skewed. Perhaps these media outlets just prefer to distance themselves from the scene the same as Amazon and Visa. I can only conclude that neither I nor anyone else can be certain of real truth with such uncertainty in the transmission of information.
Assange certainly has a romantic, noble -sounding cause, exposing the malign truths of our government and others. The exposed info compromises US intel and missions, but do these missions sync with our nations' advertised definition of democracy? And although Assange's actions can be called treasonous, is it more significant that our nation's actions be exposed as morally bereft? I have little hope for Assange, he has the first amendment on his side but the judicial system and most of the government on his other. The US will doubtfully answer to any of its supposed moral transgressions, its hypocrisy lies in the balance.
Strangely, it's the media outlets that were denied access to his exclusive releases of information that are most loudly calling Assange and the Wikileaks staff "terrorists" and "treasonous". The ones who got access are pretty happy about them. I can't believe more people haven't noticed that coincidence.
Also: Assange is in Europe, so the whole "first amendment" is pretty well irrelevant. Totally different rules over there, most of which are far more generous on the matter of protecting freedom of the press than the American laws.
No I did not notice that, but it makes sense. Do you think those outlets would change their tune upon viewing that material or having viewed it in the first place? I was aware he was in Europe with some pending sex charges. I would also agree that if he was here, the first amendment would be a pretty weak lifeline.
Listening to more Fox news blather [dad's fave channel]. I have to remark about all the casual death threats, god it's just so damned unprofessional, "Yeah we should just assassinate him".
Did you know it's illegal to photograph a policeman in the UK? And what about the editor of Paris-Match being fired under government pressure when he allowed publishing pictures that showed Nicholas Sarzoky's wife in public with her new boyfriend? Or the Italian prime minister pressuring public radio stations not to air certain programs? Ireland punishes "blasphemy" in the press with a 25,000 euro fine.
I think the framers would be inclined to disagree with you there. Our constitution enshrines the right to speech. I think they would have willingly extended to all people if they could have.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 enshrines it for all people.
2600 responded to these attacks: http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037
It is making the hacker community look like 12 year old terrorists. There was supposed to be an agreement within Anon and the Pirate Parties that Operation: Payback would be put on hold, that people should be finding more effective way of combating. I am a member of the Massachusetts Pirate Party and can say that we are working within legal routes to combat government and big business. If you really want to make a difference, rally within your community and speak out as a combined voice.
From the above article:
"There are a number of positive steps people – both inside and outside of the hacker community – can take to support Wikileaks and help spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem."
I am not afraid to kick the door in and take down some companies, but not after trying every option first. It is when they leave you with no other choice that you take action.
I don't see anything in this story that is noteworthy or noble. Having said that, there will be some information that may interest the sensationalists in a tabloid kind of way. This document dump really isn't much of an accomplishment by Assange and company. Getting somebody in a free society to release restricted info isn't hard. I'd be more impressed if Assange had managed to print China's nuke targeting list, or a list of dead and imprisoned from Tienanmen square. Or if he had managed to publish North Korea's missile client list or prevent a Taliban offensive by publishing their intended operations.
There has been a lot of crowing over this event as a victory of the free press. A "Free" press is a subjective perception. For example, It has been proven in court that the owners of a media outlet may use their ownership to further a particular viewpoint (political or business oriented) in their media. The press is always subject to various interests.
One disaffected private is going to go down for the count for his actions. What is Assange going to do for him? If they can show that the information released caused any deaths, the kid will probably be charged with murder and may face the death penalty (I don't know for sure what penalties the military justice system in the States can employ). To my mind this story is a distraction.
Apologies, babble over.