• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikileaks "Cyberwar"

Alferd_Packer

Philosopher
Alferd_Packer
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
8,746
Apart from the document dump, I am fascinated by the whole "cyberwar" hyperbole going on right now.

Granted at this point it is nothing more than a minor protest action that will have little effect in the long run.

I also doubt that the actions of the anonymous group will have any effect on the policies and actions of the corporations.

This is much like the riots that happen at the big economic summits. These types of things have been going on for decades and ultimately someone is going to figure out a way to make money on this as well.
 
It's just escalation of rhetoric. It's been going on for some time. That and anonymous loves to get itself involved in big public fights with things so they can feel important.
 
"Anonymous" are all a group of thugs. I know that we all sort-of liked when they were dogging Scientology, but what they were doing was wrong then even if we did not care for the target.

I does not rise to the level of a war, but this is not because they do not mean it to be so.

What they are attempting is terrorism; To coerce through fear compliance with their agenda. Like a Mafia boss telling you; "Nice business you have here. It would be a SHAME if something happens to it."

And they have shown that they are not bluffing.

It is time for a massive effort of law enforcement with no leniency shown at all.
 
Okay, so long as the people behind the DDoS attacks on Wikileaks get prosecuted as well :)
 
I'm glad we're in agreement. I think that DDoS attacks are idiotic and damaging to their intended method, and are 100% with you in that they're "shame if something happened to it" style coercion. Doesn't matter who the target is to me, anyone that engages in them should be prosecuted.
 
BenBurch said:
"Anonymous" are all a group of thugs. I know that we all sort-of liked when they were dogging Scientology, but what they were doing was wrong then even if we did not care for the target.

I does not rise to the level of a war, but this is not because they do not mean it to be so.

What they are attempting is terrorism; To coerce through fear compliance with their agenda. Like a Mafia boss telling you; "Nice business you have here. It would be a SHAME if something happens to it."

And they have shown that they are not bluffing.

It is time for a massive effort of law enforcement with no leniency shown at all.
Click to expand...

What is the attempt and why are you labelling it as terrorism?
 
As I said elsewhere, a DDoS attack is the very antithesis of free speech.

And, I strongly advise anyone thinking about getting in on the action not to do so. Voluntarily joining a botnet is not a smart move, security-wise.
 
SnakeTongue said:
What is the attempt and why are you labelling it as terrorism?
Click to expand...

DDOS attacks and crashing systems associated with businesses, lawyers, and governments. Criminal acts intended to force a change of policy or as a warning to others not to cross WikiLeaks.

One definition of terrorism is; "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

Vandalism is violence, and there certainly are threats, and it's clearly to coerce.
 
I love how the definition of terrorism gets expanded to encompass any form of disruptive resistance the folks in charge might face. Ben, honey precious pumpkin doll, you're lovely, but come on. A digital picket line =/= terrorism. Nobody's getting threatened with violence (except of course for Mr. Assange...), and there isn't even property damage occurring. Several websites are being deprived of custom because they bowed to real threats and extortion as part of an obvious attempt by *cough, cough* certain interested parties to safeguard their precious little secrets--secrets that anyone who's read and understood them cannot pretend are inconsequential or in any way in the people's interest to conceal.
 
Let's not participate in the broadening of the term "terrorism".
What anonymous is doing is illegal, childish, and should be punished, but the fear of a company that their website may be inaccessible for a few hours is not the sort of terror for which the term was coined.

By that standard, every protest or sit in that disrupted a business was an act of terrorism, and I don't think that standard is one that is useful or accurate.

Terrorism historically has referred to actual violence or at least threat of violence against actual human beings.
 
In extremely short term thinking you are right. In reality though, the DOS attacks don't just affect the mythical "da gumbint" or Big Business(tm). They affect the whole chain attached to those entities, never mind that many of the Big Business(tm) that gets attacked are small operators running on duct tape and bubblegum

These attacks destroy wealth, not just for da gumbint, but for people who use their paychecks to pay their doctor
 
pipelineaudio said:
In extremely short term thinking you are right. In reality though, the DOS attacks don't just affect the mythical "da gumbint" or Big Business(tm). They affect the whole chain attached to those entities, never mind that many of the Big Business(tm) that gets attacked are small operators running on duct tape and bubblegum

These attacks destroy wealth, not just for da gumbint, but for people who use their paychecks to pay their doctor
Click to expand...

If destroying wealth is terrorism, then when Oprah tells people not to eat beef, and they listen and it spoils on the shelf, Oprah is a terrorist.

Yes, you can stretch it so that words like "violence" apply, but again this is not the way we have used terrorism in it's history, this is a broadening, and a broadening that would include any activist who disrupts business.

They are idiots, they are criminals, they are causing damage, but they are not terrorists. Words are tools, and the broader we make them, the more damage we'll do to the thing we're trying to build by whacking away at it with oversized tools.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Apart from the document dump, I am fascinated by the whole "cyberwar" hyperbole going on right now.

Granted at this point it is nothing more than a minor protest action that will have little effect in the long run.

I also doubt that the actions of the anonymous group will have any effect on the policies and actions of the corporations.

This is much like the riots that happen at the big economic summits. These types of things have been going on for decades and ultimately someone is going to figure out a way to make money on this as well.
Click to expand...

A somewhat perverse comparison could be drawn to the Luddite movement of the 19th century. "British textile artisans in the nineteenth century protested – often by destroying mechanised looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. .. Overall, the Luddites have been given a bad press by critics who have not cared to look behind the terrible and worsening conditions that Luddites addressed in sheer desperation...Luddites had genuine grievances that were not often addressed. Working people were sometimes regarded as enemies of the state, the aristocracy, and the new class of industrialists." (Wikipedia)

Hackers are computer users who protest--often by disrupting business using DDoS attacks--the perceived abuses of corporations, governments, and the financial elite. Hackers may have genuine grievances that may need to be addressed. They are regarded as enemies of the state, corporations, and the monied interests of capitalist society.

I'm not so sure this will have little effect in the long run. I think something big is going on, and this whole Wikileaks thing is part of it. The outcome may be increased secrecy and more Draconian laws, or not. But something will come of it.
 
I, for one, am glad there are people willing to act when they see an injustice like political arrests, abuse of government power, and attempts to thwart free speech.

Specific leaks that caused real damage should be addressed. I haven't seen one yet though there are lots of general claims such leaks occurred. But politically embarrassing stuff, government officials have no argument that justifies attacking the messenger.

Not all whistle blowers are evil people. Many are courageous, speaking out at great risk and sacrifice because they believe it is the right thing to do.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I, for one, am glad there are people willing to act when they see an injustice like political arrests, abuse of government power, and attempts to thwart free speech.
Click to expand...

Maybe its just me, but shutting down the ability of people to communicate seems pretty much opposite of supporting free speech
 
I fail to see where such is occurring on the part of anonymous. This is a digital picket line, denying a retailer custom out of moral outrage at their complicity in the persecution of Mr. Assange. And that is what they are doing, let's make no bones about it. Is anyone here really going to try and say that Mr. Assange's assets being frozen, the DDoS attacks on his site, and his arrest on sex crime charges all just randomly coincided with his attempt to publish information that might embarrass America's rich and powerful?
 
Yeah, because when I sell something on Amazon or await payment from paypal, what I'm REALLY doing is denying this douche his free speech

I am Big Gubmint and Big Business rolled into one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom