dagblog - Comments for " Wikileaks: The Death Knell of the Internet?"

From Davidseth at

we are stardust — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:43:00 +0000

In reply to Wikileaks: The Death Knell of the Internet?

From Davidseth at docudharma.com:

From the NYT:

LONDON - A broad campaign of cyberattacks appeared to be under way on Wednesday in support of the beleaguered antisecrecy organization WikiLeaks, which has drawn governmental criticism from around the globe for its release of classified American documents and whose founder, Julian Assange, is being held in Britain on accusations of rape.

Attacks were reported on Mastercard.com, which stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks; on the lawyer representing the two Swedish women who have accused Mr. Assange of sexual improprieties; and on PostFinance, the Swiss postal system's financial arm, which closed Mr. Assange's account after saying he provided false information by saying that he resided in Switzerland.
At least some of the attacks involved distributed denials of service, in which a site is bombarded by requests from a network of computers until it reaches capacity and, effectively, shuts down.
It was unclear whether the various attacks were independently mounted, but suspicion was immediately focused on Anonymous, a leaderless group of activist hackers that had vowed to wreak revenge on any organization that lined up against WikiLeaks and that claimed responsibility for the Mastercard attack.

Anonymous, according to the Times, has expressed its philosophy in two manifestos released this past week, and is battling for nothing less than free information on a free Internet:

The group, which gained notoriety for their cyberattacks... released two manifestos over the weekend vowing revenge against enemies of WikiLeaks.
"We fight for the same reasons," said one. "We want transparency and we counter censorship."
The manifestos singled out companies like PayPal and Amazon, who had cut off service to WikiLeaks after the organization's recent release of classified diplomatic documents from a cache of 250,000 it had obtained.
In recent days, Gregg Housh, an activist who has worked on previous Anonymous campaigns, said that a core of 100 or so devout members of the group, supplemented by one or two extremely expert hackers, were likely to do most of the damage. Mr. Housh, who disavows any illegal activity himself, said the reason Anonymous had declared its campaign was amazingly simple. Anonymous believes that "information should be free, and the Internet should be free," he said,

Information, as the law now stands, is anything but free. But the Internet for more than a decade and a half has eroded much of the traditional deference to ownership of information. Napster and its progeny have brought a generation of people who think music and film should all be free. Readers of Blogs are never disturbed by what amounts to wholesale infringement of copyrighted photos and videos and text. Wikileaks has carried this a step further by publishing enormous amounts of material officially designated "secret". The trend on the Internet is toward free and unfettered access to all information. But those who own the information have no intention whatsoever to allow it to flow without charge and without a fight.

Today's attacks, I think, mark the Cyber Battle of Lexington and Concord.

Ta, Larry. ;o)

we are stardust — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 21:09:25 +0000

In reply to Sorry stardust. The "snark"

Ta, Larry. ;o)

Sorry stardust. The "snark"

LarryH — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:55:00 +0000

In reply to Ya didn't highjack it, Larry;

Sorry stardust. The "snark" comment wasn't aimed at you. It is just that I've got a lot of miles in the world of software from bank data processing to software development for the big guys. Cmauk told me the other day that the security cameras at Orlando airport are not connected to anything because DHS only funded the cameras, not recording devices etc. You can't shut down the internet without compromising the power grid, nuclear reactor safety, commerce and the rest. I say "Bring it on." But I thought there were sincere and serious responses to your post and I didn't want to interrupt that.

Ya didn't highjack it, Larry;

we are stardust — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:35:53 +0000

In reply to Sorry Dusty, I didn’t mean to

Ya didn't highjack it, Larry; I just couldn't suss out your 'snark' comment; and I hope you're right that no laws can be passed that will shut us down as they try to contain infoleaks. Kgb said 'not and keep the internet functioning', or close to it.

Sorry Dusty, I didn’t mean to

LarryH — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:25:03 +0000

In reply to I do want to make sure that

Sorry Dusty, I didn’t mean to hijack your post. I guess it is just that those of us with a passing exposure to technologies like computers get a kick out of the idea that any of this stuff is secure or securable. You might recall that the Steves ( Jobs and Wozniak) started out as “phone freaks.” And so the delinquent teenager joins the police force and spends his time arresting delinquent teenagers – just part of the great Mandala of life.

Like Scotty said, “the more complicated they make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain". The teenagers who understood that joke and laughed at it in 1984 are now 40 something today. Let’s say that they decide to quarantine anything containing WikiLeaks material. Why not just salt every site, especially places like MSNBC or FOX, with WikiLeaks material? Hey this may turn out to be fun.

I do want to make sure that

we are stardust — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:00:57 +0000

In reply to “Convenient” you say? The

I do want to make sure that you understand that this diary was not about Assange or Wikileaks per se, but the potential attempts of our government (or other nations it might/will pressure), to shut down portions of the internet in order to prevent leaks, freeze accounts, crash domains and search engines, etc. I am a supporter, and I want to make that clear.

“Convenient” you say? The

LarryH — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:49:01 +0000

In reply to In its simplest form, Mr.

“Convenient” you say? The American civil war was a convenience? Perhaps you are thinking of our last President of fond memory who saw “convenience” in being a “war president.” (Note: Lovelace penned the little poem I quoted while in prison during his own “convenient” little civil war in England circa 1640. His biography might be instructive when considering Mr. Assange.)

Mr. Seaton you are a technologist and I greatly admire your professional abilities and your contributions to the welfare of your fellow man. Again I find myself at odds with you and in disagreement, but I want you to know that I do so with great respect for you.

There is nothing inherently “weird” in Mr. Assange’s behavior. It is elementary civil disobedience. Anyone who has decided to stand against a police line or a hostile crowd in peaceful protest knows the choice to do so is not unencumbered or without risk. There is always anxiety and concern. But no one can be forced to take part in such activities. They must be freely chosen. The aim of all such actions is to prick the moral sentiment of the general population and in that way place “good” above convenience. As Mr. Assange points out in his op-ed in yesterday’s Australian, there is not a single documented case of anyone being harmed physically by anything WikiLeaks has distributed. He freely chooses to make his protest. We need not posit self-delusion or euphoria to explain his behaviour. It is to be seen how the general population responds and how the established order reacts. For Mr. Assange and his supporters the last few lines of Mr. Lovelace’ poem are enough.

If I have freedom in my love

And in my soul am free,

Angels alone, that soar above,

Enjoy such liberty.

In its simplest form, Mr.

David Seaton — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:30:55 +0000

In reply to (Boy am I sacrificing an

In its simplest form, Mr. Assange is operating on the assumption that things like the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the many other similar sentiments, codified or not, regarding the nature of a free society, are operable principles which inform modern life.

Mr. Assange could be wrong. Remember that no less than Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus when he found it convenient.

I had to google Lovelace, I

we are stardust — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:25:27 +0000

In reply to (Boy am I sacrificing an

I had to google Lovelace, I confess. They're great lines, and I really like your 'simplest form', Larry, and find your sentiments rather bracing. I do wonder which snark you're sacrificing, though.

(Boy am I sacrificing an

LarryH — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:03:27 +0000

In reply to Wikileaks: The Death Knell of the Internet?

(Boy am I sacrificing an ocean of snark with this comment.)

In its simplest form, Mr. Assange is operating on the assumption that things like the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the many other similar sentiments, codified or not, regarding the nature of a free society, are operable principles which inform modern life. If he is killed or otherwise done away with this proposition is not proven false. Even if the GWOT is to be fought on every hard drive on every computer in the world, neither the technology nor the best efforts of tyrants can change this fact:

Stone walls do not a prison make,

Nor iron bars a cage;

Minds innocent and quiet take

That for an hermitage

To Althea, From Prison Richard Lovelace