• 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"

pipelineaudio said:
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
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the "digital picket line" analogy? Amazon and PayPal cut off Wikileaks because it was deemed to have violated their terms of service (assumption of guilt without benefit of due process). In protest, DDoS attacks were launched against them by volunteer hackers (who were not affiliated with Wikileaks).

How is this different from consumers boycotting a business, or a picket line outside the local WalMart? You can still go inside the store, you just have to walk around the protesters. Same with Amazon or PayPal. Both of them are still in business, last I heard. But the hackers' aim of protesting and drawing public attention to Amazon's and PayPal's actions towards Wikileaks has been accomplished.

Demonstrating (whether digitally or in the flesh) and thereby disrupting business and government activities one considers objectionable is an exercise of free speech.

Wealth destruction? Give me a break! The Masters of Disaster on Wall Street destroying trillions and being bailed out by the taxpayers, that's wealth destruction.

I guess it's OK that we invade other countries under false pretenses, destroy their infrastructure so our contractors can rebuild it (maybe, someday), and kill their civilians (so sorry, collateral damage)...that's all fine, but you're outraged that somebody might lose a sale on Amazon or have payment delayed through PayPal because their web sites are down for a couple of hours? Geesh!
 
Also, as a point of fairness, it should be pointed out that the DDoS attacks on Mastercard, etc. were not nearly to the scale of the ones against WL. It should also be noted that WL was literally removed from the internet and is currently only reachable at proxy addresses. Last I checked, Mastercard's website was still up and running at its original address. If you're outraged at the attacks on Mastercard, why aren't you outraged at the attacks on WL?
 
A Laughing Baby said:
Also, as a point of fairness, it should be pointed out that the DDoS attacks on Mastercard, etc. were not nearly to the scale of the ones against WL. It should also be noted that WL was literally removed from the internet and is currently only reachable at proxy addresses. Last I checked, Mastercard's website was still up and running at its original address. If you're outraged at the attacks on Mastercard, why aren't you outraged at the attacks on WL?
Click to expand...
I said it elsewhere, so I'll repeeat it here: I'm against all DDoS attack on anyone. I object to the tactic itself, not to those using it.
 
babycondor said:
Do you not understand the "digital picket line" analogy? Amazon and PayPal cut off Wikileaks because it was deemed to have violated their terms of service (assumption of guilt without benefit of due process). In protest, DDoS attacks were launched against them by volunteer hackers (who were not affiliated with Wikileaks).

How is this different from consumers boycotting a business, or a picket line outside the local WalMart? You can still go inside the store, you just have to walk around the protesters. Same with Amazon or PayPal. Both of them are still in business, last I heard. But the hackers' aim of protesting and drawing public attention to Amazon's and PayPal's actions towards Wikileaks has been accomplished.

Demonstrating (whether digitally or in the flesh) and thereby disrupting business and government activities one considers objectionable is an exercise of free speech.

Wealth destruction? Give me a break! The Masters of Disaster on Wall Street destroying trillions and being bailed out by the taxpayers, that's wealth destruction.

I guess it's OK that we invade other countries under false pretenses, destroy their infrastructure so our contractors can rebuild it (maybe, someday), and kill their civilians (so sorry, collateral damage)...that's all fine, but you're outraged that somebody might lose a sale on Amazon or have payment delayed through PayPal because their web sites are down for a couple of hours? Geesh!
Click to expand...
With a DofS attack, you cannot enter the store. This is the equivalent of the picketers locking elbows and preventing entry, illegal in all jurisdictions that I know of.
 
Phrost said:
Because a lot of people here have replaced their faith in God with faith in Government.
Click to expand...

plumjam said:
Word.
Very common at JREF.
Click to expand...

Have I missed this common JREF poster who was for the Wikileaks DDoS but against the Mastercard one? Perhaps you could point to maybe two poster who hold that position, but I haven't even seen one. Thus, I doubt it is 'common'.
 
rwguinn said:
With a DofS attack, you cannot enter the store. This is the equivalent of the picketers locking elbows and preventing entry, illegal in all jurisdictions that I know of.
Click to expand...

What about a protest where the store is literally removed from existence and must relocate to a location you've never heard of?
 
rwguinn said:
With a DofS attack, you cannot enter the store. This is the equivalent of the picketers locking elbows and preventing entry, illegal in all jurisdictions that I know of.
Click to expand...

You have put your finger on the flaw in the analogy. I support picketers' rights to march with signs and chants, petitions, pamphlets and folk guitars and whatever else they can dream up; I'll listen to their message and their arguments before deciding whether to enter the store. But I don't support picketers denying my right to make my own decision on whether or not to patronize an establishment.

I'm also more impressed by picketers who don't hide their faces.
 
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...

So you support crime as a means of protest? Because these "acts", as you call it, are crimes, in case you didn't know.
 
Last edited:
blue sock monkey said:
You have put your finger on the flaw in the analogy. I support picketers' rights to march with signs and chants, petitions, pamphlets and folk guitars and whatever else they can dream up; I'll listen to their message and their arguments before deciding whether to enter the store. But I don't support picketers denying my right to make my own decision on whether or not to patronize an establishment.

I'm also more impressed by picketers who don't hide their faces.
Click to expand...

pardalis said:
So you support crime as a means of protest? Because these "acts", as you call it, are crimes, in case you didn't know.
Click to expand...

So I'm assuming both of you are also not okay with the cyber attacks on the WL website, correct?
 
A Laughing Baby said:
So I'm assuming both of you are also not okay with the cyber attacks on the WL website, correct?
Click to expand...

In my case, you are correct.

I do support civil protest, It's just that I think the Internet offers ample opportunity to support WikiLeaks without trampling on the rights of others (including the rights of others to ignore protesters).
 
tyr_13 said:
Have I missed this common JREF poster who was for the Wikileaks DDoS but against the Mastercard one? Perhaps you could point to maybe two poster who hold that position, but I haven't even seen one. Thus, I doubt it is 'common'.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're on about.
I was concurring with Phrost that many people have replaced God with Government.
 
Pardalis said:
So you support crime as a means of protest? Because these "acts", as you call it, are crimes, in case you didn't know.
Click to expand...

I support nonviolent civil disobedience, yes. Thoreau and Ghandi come to mind. Read the Wikipedia entry on "civil disobedience" for an overview.
 
I support Wikileaks for the most part. I also feel that this DDoS'ing activity is out of line. That being said...

babycondor said:
Amazon and PayPal cut off Wikileaks because it was deemed to have violated their terms of service (assumption of guilt without benefit of due process).
Click to expand...


There's no Constitutionally protected "due process" for business decisions. Severing business ties with another entity does not require the arbitration of a state or federally sanctioned court.

ETA: And DDoS attacks are in no way similar to picket lines. Picket lines are meant to expose other patrons to the picketing individuals' grievances against the picketed establishment, possibly with the intention of convincing others not to do business with the establishment in question.
 
Last edited:
Ummm... As I read it, Wikileaks is on some proxy not because of cyberattacks but because;

1. A succession of hosting companies decided to not do business with them
2. Their DNS service decided not to do business with them
 
BenBurch said:
Ummm... As I read it, Wikileaks is on some proxy not because of cyberattacks but because;

1. A succession of hosting companies decided to not do business with them
2. Their DNS service decided not to do business with them
Click to expand...

Right. I suppose you can say I'm guilty of misrepresenting things a bit. The progression of events was a severe DDoS on the day of the leaks (which didn't matter, as the cables were already in the hands of the press), followed by pressure from sitting senators to hosting services to remove hosting. They did, followed by other hosts, leading to WL needing to use proxy services. Not technically a cyber attack, but definitely the result of a protest of some sort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom