Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Internet & Networking It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet - and they're learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks' account suspension. Update II: Visa.com is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Thread beginning with comment 452895
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: inappropriate
by weorthe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE: inappropriate"
weorthe
Member since:
2005-07-06


The Wikileaks website, which launched no DDoS attack of its own, has come under heavy DDoS attack.

Whom do you imagine launched that DDoS attack against Wikileaks? Who would be interested in doing this? Who would sponsor such an act?

Was this initial DDoS attack on Wikileaks legal in your view? If it was, why?


It could have been the US government trying to delay the release of information from the leaked cables. Or anyone else wanting to do that. It was certainly wrong. I can't say if it was illegal or not, since it may have been done by the very entities that define "illegal."

Let us hope that these strategies do not escalate into a world wide web war that destroys the usefulness of the medium.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: inappropriate
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:20 in reply to "RE[2]: inappropriate"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I can't say if it was illegal or not, since it may have been done by the very entities that define "illegal."


Who are the entities who could define the legaility of such an act (DDoS of a website operating under foreign sovreignity)? What process gives those entities the authority/mandate to do so?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: inappropriate
by weorthe on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:38 in reply to "RE[3]: inappropriate"
weorthe Member since:
2005-07-06


Who are the entities who could define the legaility of such an act (DDoS of a website operating under foreign sovreignity)? What process gives those entities the authority/mandate to do so?


It is possible to make a law against misuse of a network regardless of whether or not the other end of it is across a border. Otherwise, depending on jurisdictions, there could be a tort.

But my point was that DDoss are bad for the Internet, regardless of the intentions of those who cause them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: inappropriate
by lemur2 on Thu 9th Dec 2010 04:36 in reply to "RE[2]: inappropriate"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It could have been the US government trying to delay the release of information from the leaked cables.


Would this happen to be the selfsame government who is sponsoring this event:

http://wonkette.com/431902/u-s-state-department-hilariously-announc...

Perhaps I could steal the text from one of the nomination letters they have apparently been sent:

Greetings,

I would like to nominate Julian Assange for the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize for 2011. I believe that the levels of derision, assault, and character assassination (let us hope that the assassination stays merely within the realm of his character) represent a focused and concerted effort on behalf of a state entity to deny and obstruct the free flow of information. The tactics being employed to silence Mr. Assange and his WikiLeaks organization, including the removal of his websites hosting, DNS entry, and donation methods, amongst others, are truly reprehensible and antithetical to the notions of Freedom of the Press. The fear accompanying the abuse aimed at Mr. Assange will undoubtedly have a chilling effect upon journalists willingness and ability to pursue the goals of information freedom and transparency. It is vital that we do not grant any single monolithic state entity the ability to pursue these tactics nor tacit acceptance of this method of information disruption.

Mr. Assange, I believe, represents the same spirit of freedom and transparency which the winner of the 1997 Press Freedom Prize, Gao Yu, represented. Mr. Assange, luckily, lives in a different world; the presence of the internet allows Mr. Assange to avoid immediate detention based upon political dissent. Were we still living in the pre-internet days of 1997, I would genuinely fear for the safety and security of his person. In spite of this advancement, the pressures coming to bear upon Mr. Assange are monumental and are indicative of the level of progress still needed to be made in pursuit of a Free, Global Press.

With this information in mind, I sincerely hope that you consider Mr. Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization for the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize for 2011. The Freedom of Information and of the Press is at stake; in our increasingly interdependent world we simply cannot tolerate state entities which seek to stifle, oppress and ultimately silence Journalistic dissent.

Reply Parent Score: 2