9 ms·
I'm reminded of the country song whose chorus goes: "I've got friends in low places." -- [1] I agree, as noted by Nathan below, that this isn't helping Wikil
by tc 16y ago
I'm reminded of the country song whose chorus goes:
"I've got friends in low places."
--
[1] I agree, as noted by Nathan below, that this isn't helping Wikileaks' reputation any (despite, of course, WL having nothing to do with this). That's the problem with (and sometimes, benefit of) friends in low places -- no one ever accused them of being sophisticated.
[2] A related thought.... The system consisting of [ Person who leaks info + Wikileaks ] seems to be a modern instance of the Robin Hood archetype. Instead of "robbing from the rich to give to the poor," this system takes information from the powerful and gives it to the (relatively) powerless. Just as with Robin Hood, there's room for debate about the moral characteristics of this approach (particularly on the taking side). And just as with every Robin Hood reincarnation, this system is despised by modern aristocrats.
As I believe pg noted in an essay, during the time-setting of Robin Hood, wealth was nearly a zero-sum game. Today, wealth is not zero-sum, but power still is -- making this archetype all the more fitting.
- NathanKP 16y agoSadly 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.
- heed 16y agoI'm not under the impression 'Anonymous' helps anyone beside itself.
- steveklabnik 16y agoCats.
- trotsky 16y agocnn pageviews?
- dsplittgerber 16y agoPersonally, I thank whatever higher power there is for those people and their actions. 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.
- ars 16y agoNo, what it does is make companies refuse to do business with such customers in the first place. You do anything not mainstream? Sorry, we won't accept your business.
- dsplittgerber 16y agoFor companies who provide basic functionalities (hosting, payments, etc.) it's just not feasible to check out a potential customer ex ante - they have far too many customers for up-front checks. "Censorship costs" refer to ex-post checks on customers on which businesses have received complaints or inquiries from Governmental entities.
- dhyasama 16y agoI work for a payment company and that simply isn't true. We do in-depth checks on every customer. Risk assessment is a major part of our business.
- steveklabnik 16y agoWith payment companies, yes. I think ars is talking about Amazon and Paypal, which don't.
- sigzero 16y agoThey don't now...but they could easily do it in the future. There is no gray area here. What they did was idiotic.
- patrickaljord 16y agoIt does help Wikileaks in that other companies not as powerful as Visa and Mastercard might think twice before screwing with Wikileaks. Who would want to be ddos like that and lose business?
- sliverstorm 16y agoEssentially what you're saying is that WikiLeaks should adopt or would even benefit from a policy of strong-arming people into compliance so that it can further the cause against evil governments that strong-arm people into compliance.
- marcusbooster 16y agoThese companies have already indicated their policy can be strong-armed (ie. "The Justice Department threatened us."). This does show, at the very least symbolically, that their willingest to cave will bring an arm coming the other way.
- hendler 16y agoI feel the same way. 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.
- gasull 16y agoAt what point is it OK to use a DDOS attack as a form of protest? 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?
- CWuestefeld 16y agodo we have to wait until they... Who is the "they" that you refer to? I don't think that it's MasterCard nor Visa that did those things.
- gasull 16y agoThey is obviously the Government, but with the help of unethical companies: AT&T for taping the Internet, Amazon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard for suppressing free press, etc.
- potatolicious 16y agoI have a hard time linking "getting out of the crossfire" with "unethical". Spineless? Perhaps. Failing to stand up for some principle? Probably. But unethical?
- gasull 16y agoFailing to stand up for some principle? Probably. But unethical? Do you doublethink so?
- potatolicious 16y agoThis is the internal inconsistency that troubles me about this whole WikiLeaks thing. We've railed on companies constantly in the past for being political, and now we're railing on them for not being sufficiently political in our favor. 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.
- michaelchisari 16y agoI think you make the mistake of thinking that all protest activity should be about making friends or increasing your reputation and good standing. 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.
- tybris 16y agoIronically, this will be a major boost to Amazon's Christmas sales, since they don't rely on securecode.
- gwright 16y agoInternet? Grassroots? 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.
- michaelchisari 16y agoI'm not aware of previous grassroots movements being democratically elected. Nobody elected the suffragists, for instance. That's not really how movements work.
- gwright 16y agoOK. But I didn't intend to conflate my questioning of the use of 'grassroots' with my point about accountability. 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.
- Raphael_Amiard 16y agoDo you or the gp have any information that is not into the article ? 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.
- ohyes 16y agoI don't think mass declassification of government documents is a good idea, but... 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?
- pyre 16y ago> (and presumably the crime for which his funds > have been frozen) Last I checked, they don't freeze your assets when you are accused of rape.
- pigbucket 16y agoThe stuff in parentheses that you cite refers to a crime like the crime of inciting subversion. Why ohyes says "we know he actually committed" such a crime, I don't know.
- ohyes 16y agoShould have been 'we know that he committed in the eyes of the government.' Sorry for being cryptic.
- quag 16y agoWho is DOSing Wikileaks?
- rhizome 16y agoWho besides you is saying that Wikileaks organized the ddos?
- donaq 16y agoThis is probably not representative, but my facebook feed is full of people posting links to news about this with comments that mostly semi-applaud those actions. The interesting thing is that my facebook acquaintances are mostly neither hackers nor Americans.
- random42 16y agoCan we consider it as Civil disobedience of the modern age?
- mashmac2 16y agoGarth Brooks for those who were wondering... take a listen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1063893612084739337# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1063893612084739337...
- alanh 16y agoDamn you! I avoid piano bars so that I can pretend that song doesn’t exist! ;)
- cosmicray 16y agoThat isn't a piano bar song ... Garth Brooks is more likely heard in some little country bar. The kind of place where it's hard to find a decent chardonnay.
- jackfoxy 16y agoI would not agree power is a zero sum game. Defining it is squishier than defining wealth, and even giving you broad latitude in the definition, I don't think you could come up with much of a proof of that assertion.