Sadly those friends aren't helping the reputation of Wikileaks. I definitely support freedom and information and the press, but organizing a DDOS doesn't help Wikileaks, it just associates Wikileaks even more with illegal activity.
Often it's just as much about hitting back as hard as you can. Now you can argue the merits of that, but we have crossed a major threshold here: The internet has taken down the websites of two of the largest credit providers in the world, two weeks before Christmas.
If that isn't an exertion of grassroots power in the internet age, I don't know what is. The implications are boundless. Visa, and Mastercard probably didn't think twice about canceling Wikileak's payments. I doubt their risk assessment would have been the same if they had known this would result.
The Internet hasn't taken down anything. A small group of geeks have taken upon themselves to take down a few targeted websites. No due process, no rule book, no accountability, just naked use of force.
If I'm following correctly, I'm supposed to believe that a staff member of an elected official asking about the activities of a private company is an abuse of power but a small group of unelected geeks representing no one but themselves are to be commended for actively disrupting the activities of a private business.
I think the term 'grassroots' suggests a much more widespread and visible 'movement' than the tiny number of Anonymous members taking part in the DDOS attacks.
I think WikiLeaks may hurt some supporters, but I think amongst those sympathetic to the cause - it can only help them increase in numbers, awareness and influence. Hats off to them.
There is certainly an argument to be made for government transparency but I fail to see how MasterCard, Visa, and Paypal, and so on are the organizations that should be pressured in order to bring about improved government transparency.
And no, I don't think that 'radical actions for transparency' is a widely supported movement and regardless of our disagreement on the term 'widely' I don't think DDOS activities are effective, appropriate, or justified in the furtherance of better government transparency.
I'm using widely to mean between 5% to even 20% of people - perhaps if you briefly talked with them about it. It's not a subject like religion where people are hard fast - I've already talked to many in their 60's who think WikiLeaks is overall doing good things and likes to see "the man" take a hit. Unless you're right-winger who already overuses "treason" in your political discourse - I think there's room for debate on this issue with WikiLeaks gaining some legitimacy.
Again with the due process and rules: do you think when the French people stormed the Bastille during the French Revolution, there was any semblance of rules or accountability? Hell no. It was the "naked use of force". Did it have bad consequences? Some. Did it have good consequences? I think you know the answer.
Yes, we've got two examples of 'disputes'. But that doesn't get us very far. Can you finish the analogy for me?
You are suggesting that the DDOS activities are indicative of an attempt to overthrow what in favor of what?
Is there a French Revolution version of Godwin's Law?
Reaching for a Nazi analogy or a French Revolution analogy should be done sparingly and with careful consideration.
Now you are suggesting that I'm arguing that 20th-century history is off limits. This sort of wild over-generalization is the antithesis of 'serious discussion'.
One thing I think we can all agree on: if the next revolution comes any time soon (ie. next few decades), it will start online.
The disclosures can be debated within the terms of government transparency and public policy, but the DDOS attacks were all about a small group of private individuals attacking private companies because they disagreed with how they ran their business.
The two issues are related by a common party, Wikileaks, but other than that they aren't even in the same ballpark. My comments were about the DDOS attacks and not the Wikileaks disclosures. You seem to be talking about the disclosures.
What Anonymous is doing is an attack, and its only justification so far is the attempted suppression of Wikileaks' journalism. Suppression of rights like the freedom of the press are among the best justifications for revolution. So, while the current DDOS probably isn't the start of a revolution, it is the kind of thing you would expect to see in the opening stages of a modern revolt in an industrialized society, before things get to the physical violence.
The government stepped in and `advised` the private companies that it wouldn't be in their best interest to continue doing business with wikileaks. Even though nothing illegal on the part of wikileaks has been proved.
Taking away the freedom of press doesn't mean shoot the leader in the head and imprison all the rest.
If they manage to isolate you enough , they've succeeded in taking away your freedom.
More pointedly, it was a time of great cultural upheaval. A slough of philosophers emerged, each advocating a worldview distinct from, but related to, the other. New ideas began to take hold, and a populace that was previously insulated against the spread of information began to be exposed to new ideas. Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu brought new ideas to the national dialogue, while dissatisfaction with the Three Estate system (monarchy, church, everyone else - government, corporations, everyone else) led to widespread unrest. All of this happened during an economic crisis where the irresponsible spending of the French Crown had all but bankrupted the nation.
Have a read for yourself. The parallels are there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#Pre-revolutio...
I think that makes a big difference. Nobody is going to start a revolution if they have enough to eat and a place to live.
You were the one who ran that horse into the ground, trying to insert gravitas that was never intended, so stop with the "Godwin's Law" rolling-of-the-eyes.
bye-bye karma :)
If one hundred thousand people decide to stop traffic in new york or disrupt the air port in London these are a tiny fraction of citizens (they don't have to be citizens), unelected with no rules. They all might have different ideas about why they are there and it may be impossible for anyone to lead them to stop.
There may be some inherently bad things about mobs, but there is nothing inherently good about them. You could have hundreds of thousands take to the street in support of fascism just as easily as freedom of information.
Worrisome as they are though, chaotic mass protests seem to be an important part of the democratic process.
You can't just slap the word 'protest' on any activity in order to justify it.
The Boston Tea Party, for instance, was hardly a peaceful assembly.
There is some poetic justice in the symbols of American finance the world over being taken down without 'due process' after America has done lots of things without 'due process' the world over.
That said I feel sorry for those that depend on VISA/Mastercard for a living.
For every person that has been killed in Illegal wars, been subjected to torture, extradited without so much as a hearing or simply snatched off the street in Europe or other places in the world 'due process' would have mattered a lot, and that's people we're talking about, whose lives were utterly ruined at the call of a 'small group of politicians' not websites.
A small group of elected aristocrats single handedly took sites off of the Internet because they didn't like it, even though the content was not illegal and was protected under the First Amendent. "just naked use of force". The difference is, were supposed to be holding the government accountable.
I have no problems. I'd love to see this hurt Visa and Mastercard. Get them and Paypal and Amazon to grow a pair and tell the government that WL isn't doing anything illegal. Is it classy? Is it in the best interest of proper discourse? No. But come on, we're past that point.
Assange is rapidly becoming a persona non grata in most of the first world countries because he challenges their authority and methods. Wikileaks is being strangled by a DoS on its resources both human and material.
We should all be doing whatever we can with whatever resources we have to prevent Wikileaks from dying. Yes, you can contact your congressman, but honestly, is that really going to do any good? You can speak out and hold protests, but the media will only continue to marginalize your cause or worse, ignore you entirely.
The methods being employed for these DoS attacks are obviously not legal, but what other recourse is there? And as for them being unelected, I will put my voice behind them right now. The people I actually took the time to elect don't give a shit.
There is what is legal and what is right. I will always fight for what is right; legality be damned.
It is never right to do wrong for a chance to do right. The ends do not justify the means in this case. Your argument is fallacious in that you can apply that reasoning to everything in life.
That's a neat description of the actions taken against wikileaks. The USG and its allies have declared war on wikileaks using means both fair and foul, the friends of wikileaks are simply fighting fire with fire.
The government is going after Wikileaks in a similar way that they would go against a terrorist organization (cutting off funding and detaining them without due process). Are the government's actions legal? Are they ethical?
Cutting off funding is an interesting move on the government's behalf, because it seems that any funding would have gone to Wikileaks' legal defense, once someone found something to charge them with (looks like it will be rape).
As far as I know, distributing already leaked classified information is not illegal. (If it is, why aren't Robert Novak and other members of the media in jail?) How would detaining Assange make us any better than China detaining a dissident like Liu Xiaobo?
As an aside: I know Assange is being detained for 'rape,' but the crime we know that he has actually committed, (and presumably the crime for which his funds have been frozen), bears a striking resemblance to "inciting subversion of state power;" which Xiaobo is charged with.
It feels like the government's decision to exercise its power in this way is kind of a desperation move, trying to hold on to its rapidly evaporating secrecy.
And the question is, is this really between the government and Wikileaks anymore, or is it between the government and its citizens?
> (and presumably the crime for which his funds
> have been frozen)
Sorry for being cryptic.
Their actions raise the "censorship costs" those private enterprises (seem to have to) pay from now on upon deciding it is in their best business interest to discontinue customer relations with customers who engage in allegedly illegal activities without investigating the supposed illegality of their customers' actions themselves.
You do anything not mainstream? Sorry, we won't accept your business.
"Censorship costs" refer to ex-post checks on customers on which businesses have received complaints or inquiries from Governmental entities.
I mean, do we have to wait until they grope us at checkpoints? Checked.
Until they take websites down without trial? Checked.
Until they start accusing journalist of espionage? Checked.
Until they illegally tape the Internet? Checked.
Is there a limit or DDOS is wrong no matter what?
Who is the "they" that you refer to? I don't think that it's MasterCard nor Visa that did those things.
But unethical?
But unethical?
Do you doublethink so?
So which will it be?
This is Amazon, PayPal, VISA, MC, etc, saying "woah hey a dangerously hot potato, not touching that", which strikes me as a more or less neutral stance.
To expect more than that would be expecting a company to make a political stand on one side or another - something we've consistently fought against in the past.
So which is it? Do we want companies to remain politically neutral and leave the democratic process up to real people (as opposed to corporate persons)?
Or do we want them to fight for our cause, and make open political stands? If so, we also have to accept that often they will not be fighting on our side, and each punch they throw will be worth a lot of real people's punches.
There's only so much you can avoid taking sides on.
These are complex decisions being made by complex businesses...why does no single company deserve the benefit of the doubt?
I don't think its about the benefit of doubt anymore. I think we have to recognize that the groups on the other side of the power equation are implacable and do not have constraints stopping them from harming you. They have the power to take over your life and do not have any oversight.
Heck I would say that they have evolved to game the system and learnt how to be the best at it.
The original system was not about "the constitution" or freedom, liberty, fraternity or whatever ideal we can point to. It was about distributing power evenly and having checks and balances in the most enlightened way possible.
That power equation IS out of whack, and it needs to be brought back into balance.
At what point do you stop staring at the minute details and say - Crap things are messed up.
When was the last time you heard a company take the long view about society? If corporations don't care because they have a need to make money, if the rule makers have been corrupted and the average user is irrelevant, if the impartiality of the referees/judges is being removed, then who is there to ensure the system works?
As someone pointed out - "I mean, do we have to wait until they grope us at checkpoints? Checked. Until they take websites down without trial? Checked. Until they start accusing journalist of espionage? Checked. Until they illegally tape the Internet? Checked."
Heck you have to get pissed off at some point before you do something about it. Its likely that the point has been passed.
I have no problem with companies being political, my only problem is when they use their disproportionate power to rewrite the laws in a way that screws all other stakeholders. Would Amazon hosting WikiLeaks be a case of a big company using their political influence to rewrite the laws to favor themselves while screwing everyone else? I don't think so, and I don't see any inconsistency.
Being neutral would be more like "I'll let they keep doing their thing, like any other business."
Whether you agree with Amazon/Visa/etc or not, it's important to keep clear the difference between their actions (no force involved) and the Government's actions (force involved). It's not all the same thing even if they help accomplish some similar ends.
I don't have the right answer for this and it just makes me sad that our freedom is being eroded incrementally.
So even if I wanted to get mad at companies that do the Govt's bidding without being compelled, I don't really know if Amazon is such a company or not.
It's technically wrong since leaked documents, like the Pentagon Papers, are in the public domain, so WikiLeaks does have the right to publish them, contrary to what Amazon said.
"Not being able to receive money from the public for a week can cost Wikileaks 7 digit figures in losses, and DataCell as well, as it is unable to process any cards," Fink said.
The suit will be filed in the UK against Visa Europe. The company will file a court case with a request for an immediate injunction "to limit further damage," Fink said.
Wikileaks donations can still be made via wire transfer, but that MasterCard and Visa handle small donations, which make up the majority, according to Fink.
"Wire transfers are good if you want to transfer €10,000, but if you want to pay €10, the costs of the transfer eat up the donation," said Fink. "Visa and MasterCard are vital for the small amount donations, and that's around 99.9 percent of the donations."
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/leg...
Everyone making 7 digits or more has lawyers, or should, to deal with such contracts.
The US has anti-trust laws (15USC1 - see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_0...) which cover similar conduct: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal".
It sounds like the companies have not admitted a conspiracy with Joe Lieberman to stop Wikileaks from receiving donations - the companies seem to claim to have all come to the conclusion independently - but if such a conspiracy did exist, and was considered unreasonable by the courts, it could be illegal.
It's hardly peaceful. At best, it is passive-aggressive. At worst, an outright attack on that organization. It can especially be considered such when the company in question is part of one of the world's biggest anti-competitive conglomerations.
The DDoS may be the net analog to a street protest that provokes a traffic-jam.
WikiLeaks (truth and openness in general) has the potential to create trust. But breaking trust to protest doesn't help. Illegality is probably less important if the act of protest is "right".
WikiLeaks denies engaging in civil disobedience - but there is a contrast between non-violent WikiLeaks and "violent" retaliation. WikiLeaks is the underdog, and they will not win by suppression or coercion. Even if these DDOS attacks are only meant as a protest, there has to be a better way to gain attention for the important issues.
At best, it's a distraction, at worst it plays into being labeled as terrorists.
I didn't read the "friends" word, only "supporters" and "backers". In what world are supporters friends, and in what world are people responsible for their "supporters" actions ?
It's indeed a dangerous implication, but the original article isn't doing it. You and op are. Why ?
If people, supporters, were to riot about the imprisonment of somebody, would you say that he is responsible ? If no, in what is this case different ?
If you have any information i don't about any direct links between wikileaks and the DDOS attack, it would be nice to share. Otherwise, i fear you are solely spreading your own preconceptions about the situation.