"I've got friends in low places."
 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.
 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.
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.
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.
Again with the due process and rules: do you think when the French people stormed the Bastille during the French Revolution, there was any semblance of rules or accountability? Hell no. It was the "naked use of force". Did it have bad consequences? Some. Did it have good consequences? I think you know the answer.
bye-bye karma :)
Yes, we've got two examples of 'disputes'. But that doesn't get us very far. Can you finish the analogy for me?
You are suggesting that the DDOS activities are indicative of an attempt to overthrow what in favor of what?
Is there a French Revolution version of Godwin's Law?
Reaching for a Nazi analogy or a French Revolution analogy should be done sparingly and with careful consideration.
Now you are suggesting that I'm arguing that 20th-century history is off limits. This sort of wild over-generalization is the antithesis of 'serious discussion'.
One thing I think we can all agree on: if the next revolution comes any time soon (ie. next few decades), it will start online.
The disclosures can be debated within the terms of government transparency and public policy, but the DDOS attacks were all about a small group of private individuals attacking private companies because they disagreed with how they ran their business.
The two issues are related by a common party, Wikileaks, but other than that they aren't even in the same ballpark. My comments were about the DDOS attacks and not the Wikileaks disclosures. You seem to be talking about the disclosures.
What Anonymous is doing is an attack, and its only justification so far is the attempted suppression of Wikileaks' journalism. Suppression of rights like the freedom of the press are among the best justifications for revolution. So, while the current DDOS probably isn't the start of a revolution, it is the kind of thing you would expect to see in the opening stages of a modern revolt in an industrialized society, before things get to the physical violence.
The government stepped in and `advised` the private companies that it wouldn't be in their best interest to continue doing business with wikileaks. Even though nothing illegal on the part of wikileaks has been proved.
Taking away the freedom of press doesn't mean shoot the leader in the head and imprison all the rest.
If they manage to isolate you enough , they've succeeded in taking away your freedom.
More pointedly, it was a time of great cultural upheaval. A slough of philosophers emerged, each advocating a worldview distinct from, but related to, the other. New ideas began to take hold, and a populace that was previously insulated against the spread of information began to be exposed to new ideas. Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu brought new ideas to the national dialogue, while dissatisfaction with the Three Estate system (monarchy, church, everyone else - government, corporations, everyone else) led to widespread unrest. All of this happened during an economic crisis where the irresponsible spending of the French Crown had all but bankrupted the nation.
Have a read for yourself. The parallels are there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#Pre-revolutio...
I think that makes a big difference. Nobody is going to start a revolution if they have enough to eat and a place to live.
You were the one who ran that horse into the ground, trying to insert gravitas that was never intended, so stop with the "Godwin's Law" rolling-of-the-eyes.
If one hundred thousand people decide to stop traffic in new york or disrupt the air port in London these are a tiny fraction of citizens (they don't have to be citizens), unelected with no rules. They all might have different ideas about why they are there and it may be impossible for anyone to lead them to stop.
There may be some inherently bad things about mobs, but there is nothing inherently good about them. You could have hundreds of thousands take to the street in support of fascism just as easily as freedom of information.
Worrisome as they are though, chaotic mass protests seem to be an important part of the democratic process.
You can't just slap the word 'protest' on any activity in order to justify it.
The Boston Tea Party, for instance, was hardly a peaceful assembly.
There is some poetic justice in the symbols of American finance the world over being taken down without 'due process' after America has done lots of things without 'due process' the world over.
That said I feel sorry for those that depend on VISA/Mastercard for a living.
For every person that has been killed in Illegal wars, been subjected to torture, extradited without so much as a hearing or simply snatched off the street in Europe or other places in the world 'due process' would have mattered a lot, and that's people we're talking about, whose lives were utterly ruined at the call of a 'small group of politicians' not websites.
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.
I think WikiLeaks may hurt some supporters, but I think amongst those sympathetic to the cause - it can only help them increase in numbers, awareness and influence. Hats off to them.
There is certainly an argument to be made for government transparency but I fail to see how MasterCard, Visa, and Paypal, and so on are the organizations that should be pressured in order to bring about improved government transparency.
And no, I don't think that 'radical actions for transparency' is a widely supported movement and regardless of our disagreement on the term 'widely' I don't think DDOS activities are effective, appropriate, or justified in the furtherance of better government transparency.
I'm using widely to mean between 5% to even 20% of people - perhaps if you briefly talked with them about it. It's not a subject like religion where people are hard fast - I've already talked to many in their 60's who think WikiLeaks is overall doing good things and likes to see "the man" take a hit. Unless you're right-winger who already overuses "treason" in your political discourse - I think there's room for debate on this issue with WikiLeaks gaining some legitimacy.
Assange is rapidly becoming a persona non grata in most of the first world countries because he challenges their authority and methods. Wikileaks is being strangled by a DoS on its resources both human and material.
We should all be doing whatever we can with whatever resources we have to prevent Wikileaks from dying. Yes, you can contact your congressman, but honestly, is that really going to do any good? You can speak out and hold protests, but the media will only continue to marginalize your cause or worse, ignore you entirely.
The methods being employed for these DoS attacks are obviously not legal, but what other recourse is there? And as for them being unelected, I will put my voice behind them right now. The people I actually took the time to elect don't give a shit.
There is what is legal and what is right. I will always fight for what is right; legality be damned.
It is never right to do wrong for a chance to do right. The ends do not justify the means in this case. Your argument is fallacious in that you can apply that reasoning to everything in life.
That's a neat description of the actions taken against wikileaks. The USG and its allies have declared war on wikileaks using means both fair and foul, the friends of wikileaks are simply fighting fire with fire.
A small group of elected aristocrats single handedly took sites off of the Internet because they didn't like it, even though the content was not illegal and was protected under the First Amendent. "just naked use of force". The difference is, were supposed to be holding the government accountable.
I have no problems. I'd love to see this hurt Visa and Mastercard. Get them and Paypal and Amazon to grow a pair and tell the government that WL isn't doing anything illegal. Is it classy? Is it in the best interest of proper discourse? No. But come on, we're past that point.
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?
> (and presumably the crime for which his funds
> have been frozen)
Sorry for being cryptic.
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.
You do anything not mainstream? Sorry, we won't accept your business.
"Censorship costs" refer to ex-post checks on customers on which businesses have received complaints or inquiries from Governmental entities.
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?
Who is the "they" that you refer to? I don't think that it's MasterCard nor Visa that did those things.
Whether you agree with Amazon/Visa/etc or not, it's important to keep clear the difference between their actions (no force involved) and the Government's actions (force involved). It's not all the same thing even if they help accomplish some similar ends.
I don't have the right answer for this and it just makes me sad that our freedom is being eroded incrementally.
So even if I wanted to get mad at companies that do the Govt's bidding without being compelled, I don't really know if Amazon is such a company or not.
It's technically wrong since leaked documents, like the Pentagon Papers, are in the public domain, so WikiLeaks does have the right to publish them, contrary to what Amazon said.
The US has anti-trust laws (15USC1 - see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_0...) which cover similar conduct:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal".
It sounds like the companies have not admitted a conspiracy with Joe Lieberman to stop Wikileaks from receiving donations - the companies seem to claim to have all come to the conclusion independently - but if such a conspiracy did exist, and was considered unreasonable by the courts, it could be illegal.
It's hardly peaceful. At best, it is passive-aggressive. At worst, an outright attack on that organization. It can especially be considered such when the company in question is part of one of the world's biggest anti-competitive conglomerations.
"Not being able to receive money from the public for a week can cost Wikileaks 7 digit figures in losses, and DataCell as well, as it is unable to process any cards," Fink said.
The suit will be filed in the UK against Visa Europe. The company will file a court case with a request for an immediate injunction "to limit further damage," Fink said.
Wikileaks donations can still be made via wire transfer, but that MasterCard and Visa handle small donations, which make up the majority, according to Fink.
"Wire transfers are good if you want to transfer €10,000, but if you want to pay €10, the costs of the transfer eat up the donation," said Fink. "Visa and MasterCard are vital for the small amount donations, and that's around 99.9 percent of the donations."
Everyone making 7 digits or more has lawyers, or should, to deal with such contracts.
Do you doublethink so?
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.
There's only so much you can avoid taking sides on.
These are complex decisions being made by complex businesses...why does no single company deserve the benefit of the doubt?
I don't think its about the benefit of doubt anymore. I think we have to recognize that the groups on the other side of the power equation are implacable and do not have constraints stopping them from harming you. They have the power to take over your life and do not have any oversight.
Heck I would say that they have evolved to game the system and learnt how to be the best at it.
The original system was not about "the constitution" or freedom, liberty, fraternity or whatever ideal we can point to. It was about distributing power evenly and having checks and balances in the most enlightened way possible.
That power equation IS out of whack, and it needs to be brought back into balance.
At what point do you stop staring at the minute details and say - Crap things are messed up.
When was the last time you heard a company take the long view about society?
If corporations don't care because they have a need to make money, if the rule makers have been corrupted and the average user is irrelevant, if the impartiality of the referees/judges is being removed, then who is there to ensure the system works?
As someone pointed out -
"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."
Heck you have to get pissed off at some point before you do something about it. Its likely that the point has been passed.
Being neutral would be more like "I'll let they keep doing their thing, like any other business."
I have no problem with companies being political, my only problem is when they use their disproportionate power to rewrite the laws in a way that screws all other stakeholders. Would Amazon hosting WikiLeaks be a case of a big company using their political influence to rewrite the laws to favor themselves while screwing everyone else? I don't think so, and I don't see any inconsistency.
The DDoS may be the net analog to a street protest that provokes a traffic-jam.
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.
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.
I know this is a very meta idea, and its extremely easy to break this down to the component entities (Visa corporation, thousands of individuals, etc). But under the meta concept, wouldn't that be like individual t-cells talking to each other?
For example, right at the height of the holocaust the Albert Hoffman discovers the psychoactive properties of LSD, a drug that changes the social values of any population that uses it. The fact that LSD took over society right after the holocaust isn't a coincidence; that there were more scientific papers published about LSD than any other topic shows that something was seriously wrong with society and society was pushing back.
In the same way, the very fact that WikiLeaks exists is evidence of the corruption of our current system. And the reason it continues to exist is because WikiLeaks itself is developing the ability to fight back when attacked. What Anonymous is doing is the result of an infinitely complex series calculations that are ultimately being done to maintain social homeostasis.
edit: Newton's first is an inside job. Life is entropy. :-)
The analogy drawn with immune system/cognitive issues assumes that the internet is a homogeneous whole (all participating parties are interdependent upon each other) - which they aren't.
I'd more liken it to a neighborhood gang war: all parties rely on underlying infrastructure (the streets==DNS/connections, power etc) but can attack eachother.
Aside from blowing up the streets(DNS/physical layer) this akin to two (or more) of the neighborhood gangs in a fight. You just cant hold a conversation with CC while he's getting pummeled. Yelling at him only makes matters worse.
Though to go back to your meta definition of the internet turning on itself - thats kind of what information does; lies are destroyed by facts. In this case - we have wikileaks releasing facts which destroy the lies upon which public perception has been built. This is a good thing, albeit painful. In much the same way a cheating partner in a previously happy relationship would be. It sucks to find out, and you have emotional strife - but in the long term it is good to dissolve the relationship which is not based on real trust.
I like the thought, as another put it her, that this raises the cost of censorship greatly. Wikileaks may be the only recourse we have against corruption in entrenched systems which are far too slow to change.
While there is information that is important to keep secret - I think we've seen that there is too much risk in giving government carte blanche as has been evidenced for many many many decades.
Our archetypes of governing should evolve much more quickly in the modern era, we should take the evolutions of thought and innovation that we are experiencing in the technology and scientific areas of humanity and apply them to other aspects of our civilization and then we might see some real progress.
It would be great to apply Moore's Law here such that we can get over all this petty bullshit, become self sustainable and begin to colonize outside this beautiful planet before we destroy it, and ourselves.
Because of this action, Now I can't make money and support my family.
Aside from your personal feelings, what are the odds I blame Visa, and what are the odds I blame Wikileaks? All of a sudden Visa doesn't work, MasterCard doesn't work, some sites can't be accessed, sometimes the net is slower than it should, etc.
Maybe I'm smoking crack, but from where I sit, the more hackers thrash out over WL, the more ticked millions of people are going to become at both Wikileaks and the hackers involved.
This is a very sad development. People of all opinions need to take an active hand in trying to settle this down as quickly as possible. This is no good for anybody. No good can come from this.
EDIT: If you want to support the idea of leaking to fix governments (and not the massive attack of government nodes through information overload), which I do, then WL needs a standard of conduct: what it will and will not publish. It needs a standard of acceptable behavior: what cyber protests are in line with it's mission and what protests are not.
Without these things, I can't support WL, they're going to lose track of their message and the larger media narrative, and they are going spectacularly shoot themselves and the rest of us in the foot. This is becoming dangerously nihilistic.
So I'm some average merchant, anywhere in the world.
Because of this action, Now I can't make money and
support my family.
As far as I have been able to see, these attacks haven't done anything to the back end systems. Commerce continues as normal.
Considering the volume the credit card processing system handles, especially during the holidays, could Anonymous get enough people to even make a noticeable bump in traffic if they were to go after the back end systems?
They can successfully go after a front end web site like visa.com because it is not a high volume site. Alexa.com ranks visa.com at around #3000 in the US, #10000 in the world.
In fact, this is one of the core principles that America was founded on through the symbolic Boston Tea Party and beyond.
I think the real point of these things, though its likely that the intentions of many participants differ, is to simply bring these issues to light to the common person.
I prefer to live in a world where people don't force me to care about things but persuade me through reasoned discourse.
I'm thankful that there's a balancing agent on the other end of the spectrum. Even if I disagree with it, it helps to distribute power.
I don't assume a paradigm of force. Sure it exists, but I don't assume it has to be that way. I'm not naive but I also know that people and organizations often do have the capacity to interact on a higher level; but it takes a lot of insight to see how. I don't assume the low road is the only one available.
They are not the same.
It raises the cost for payment processors to do what they did. They typically respond to economic incentives.
(in other news, it looks like they did see the error of their ways: http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-fr... )
The U.S. State Department won't care as a result of these activities.
DDoS doesn't solve problems, but it can achieve goals.
It probably will piss people off and it's not the best way to do things.
B) If I'm some average merchant, I absolutely blame Visa. If they don't find a way to make me happy, I'll look at taking my business elsewhere. Might not be an option in that particular market but generally, yeah, they have to try to make it up to their customers.
The same can be said about real world strikes which stop services or brick and mortar businesses.
No. Not true.
On top of this, as a merchant who is affected by this, I do blame Visa and MC for allowing their system to so easily be affected by something like this.
A client of mine a couple of years ago selling personal protection equipment (smoke & hazmat masks, mostly). They were based out of Australia and selling globally. Apparently they breached some US advertising restriction with one of their products (disposable hygienic suit) by having the words bird flu in the description.
Simultaneously to contacting (apparently they tried to contact earlier during US work hours), they contacted paypal and had the account shut down entirely. The US was never a major market so they put a big red sign on the product page: "Not for Sale in the USA." Getting paypal back online took weeks. Whatever department shut them down was not concerned with reversing the damage and paypal seemed like they knew which side to stay on.
Basically, paypal (and apparently visa & mastercard) is the on/off switch that various players within the US government can use. It does not take a high level one off phone call. This is an issue.
And I am saying this even though I hate DDos viscerally, my business was a victim of such an attack. But I have to say, as long as no one gets killed or injured this is a legitimate form of protest.
One of the best quotes ever!
legitimate protest vs. legal protest are very very different things.
Pick a jurisdiction and you'll find some law forbidding DDOS attacks. Here for example:
That section would cover anyone from NSW participating in this botnet and could be used to prosecute this guy if they find him:
The crux of civil disobedience is that moral men have a duty to break unjust laws. This is not civil disobedience.
I'm sure there are some script kiddies with botnets there, but I don't think the average Anonymous/4Chan member has one.
I'm having some great laughs at everyone here on HN that has never have read a bit about the history of protest movements and labor unions in the US.
For the attackers, instead of positioning the DDOS attack as revenge, you should give them as an easy-out. Stop blocking wikileaks and we'll stop the DDOS. Since Visa/Mastercard are loosing millions of dollars for each hour they are down, it would turn the issue into a simple business decision and they could change their position without losing face.
All I see recently is our government pulling the terrorist card to do an action that is in essence terrorism by our governments definition. Given that our governments fucked the definition of terrorism now that it no longer means to incite terror but means to oppose us - us being the government.
Here in Canada we're still finding out the list of laws the government broke during the G8 and G20 summits. Not to mention the government was actually misinforming people to get them to think they were complying with the law (providing ID around the checkpoints, not just while passing through) when they really were being coerced into volunteering information.
I'm sorry but I'm calling this "war on terror" as a terrorist win, cause they're not only in our governments but are our governments.
Visa isn't attacking anyone when they reject customers for any reason, just like Apple isn't attacking anyone when they reject apps. Attacking is the wrong word. It's refusing to cooperate with, even "discriminating against" (but not the various illegal types like racism or sexism), being unfriendly to, maybe "being a jerk", whatever, but there is no attacking when a business makes legal business decisions, especially one that they think lots of their customers would prefer (Why else would they do it? I'm guessing Visa is run by soulless bureaucrats just trying to make money and keep their jobs and they don't care about having a political agenda).
Visa and Mastercard are different from Apple because they did what they did when the government stepped in.
Showing weakness by negotiations with the Legion is inappropriate for them in given circumstances.
You make the assumption they are losing much. We use 3DS, and are still processing, just not using 3DS.
Please continue the DDOS until they bankrupt.
This is akin to arguing that your free speech rights are infringed upon when a moderator removes your comment on their board.
To the extent that a refusal of service violates social norms this creates a legitimate grievance in the absence of reasonable alternatives because of public policy.
Perhaps my analogy was not quite accurate, but I think your analogy goes too far on the other side. A subway is wholly owned by, and operated under, the budget of a government.
I understand, and sympathize with 12341sa's outrage, but his comment implies I have a right to purchase goods using a Visa or MasterCard.
I think most people would accept that there is a fundamental right to engage in peaceful trade. And just thinking of the issue practically, there are far more ways for someone denied access to the subway to get to their destination than there are ways for people to collect money remotely without access to the banking infrastructure and credit transfer services.
I might suspect this even before I hear that the government is lobbying for those specific bulletin boards being excluded from pending Russian regulation.
The implied threat that action may be taken against them is there, and individual representatives have spoken out against Wikileaks, but I do not believe the government has officially asked / demanded for third parties to cut ties with Wikileaks.
This is a hold up because:
- Your bank provides you a service: credit/debit card, they have to because you are their customer.
- Visa provides a service to your bank
Visa and Mastercard have a responsability to allow your bank access to their networks.
To whom the money goes is none of their business.
That said, I'm sitting back with my popcorn here. I just imagine guys in some boardroom saying, "4 what now?" Heh.
I've gotta say, I didn't even notice the double-serving hilarity of the phrasing before the parent pointed it out.
YES THEY ALL ARE!
And -- again, IIRC -- VbV or SecureCode aren't necessary to the successful completion of an online transaction. Taking down these services would frankly be a favor to consumers, as 3D Secure is an extra step that they don't need.
Are they using the latest bunch of 'best-practices' to take down a site? (e.g. slowloris, UDP flooding, DNS or TCP amplification, TCP SYN attacks, whatever is flavour of the month)
With all the fluff and the bluster being written about them I haven't seen a good technical analysis so I'd love to hear any info you might have.
The answer is simple: People get fucking pissed when they can't spend their money where they want to.
And it holds throughout history.
(Here's to hoping somebody develops a virus to brick backscatter x-ray machines.)
The point is that coordinated attack by terrorists or plain old criminals can cripple the entire world's economy and there is no easy and effective way to prevent it.
We do need to think about how internet can be re-organized to be 100% distributed system to prevent this of happening again.
Internet is already distributed. The attacks against Visa and MC are also distributed. But Visa and MC are not. They are single points of trust for our financial transactions.
A more distributed system, where a web of trust and transaction system exists, could be used. But such a thing hasn't been invented yet.
I thought about it some last year, but such a system is hard to design. I did design several prototypes, but they had lots of problems. It also involved changing the structures of presumed governmental financial structures ("central" bank for example, is also a single point of trust).
So I think, the rephrasing of the problem should be: We do need to think about how our financial systems can be reorganized to be 100% distributed systems to prevent future abuses by anyone, including governments.
Good luck to anyone with shutting down economy.
Just use the full path "http://www.paypal.com or "https://www.paypal.com
We took down Chevron by spray painting over one of the signs at a gas Station. CHEVRON IS DOWN!!!!!
Has anyone started a non-violent protest (offline or digitally) for WikiLeaks?
EDIT: Rethinking my statement on DDoS as violent. I am still interested in knowing if there are other non-DDoS protests surrounding WikiLeaks.
Nonviolent protest doesn't need to just be complaining. Everyone does that, and it doesn't get anything done unless you're a millionaire. Passive resistance is generally economically disruptive to whoever it's targeted at.
DDoS attacks are not all that different, conceptually, from sit-ins. You're not destroying their server or deleting their code. You are simply putting yourself in the way so that no one else can use their website. It's not a nice thing to do, it interferes with their ability to do business, and it's illegal, but it's not violent.
On a technical level DDoS certainly seems equivalent to a sit-in. I will have to think on this a bit more.
I'm a Ghandhi-ist myself, so I'm fascinated.
I'd imagine all their transaction processing happens elsewhere.
Yes, a good portion happens through https://verified.visa.com
Which, you'll note, is also down. This is real.
I'm just saying, if you wanted to completely discredit an organization what's the fastest way to go about doing so?
Step 1: Manufacture accusations against it's founder for which there is no defence, where the individual is guilty before a trial even begins. Oh, I don't know, how about accusing a man of a sex crime? (Especially a funny looking foreign one!)
Step 2: Manufacture scary "hackers" who do scary "hacker" things. Hide your children!
Step 3: Let CNN and Fox do what they're paid to do. Spin and spin and spin.
edit: up for me, at least.
Turns out that DDoS is a dime a dozen today, they don't necessarily mean anything.
V for Vendetta.
2) When a loan from the Fed is repaid, the "printed" money ceases to exist, so slightly more money is ultimately destroyed. The "gobs of cash" are not "simply printed".
3) There is no evidence of either price or monetary inflation actually occurring, as both price levels and the money supply tends to contract along with economic contraction
4) "bailed our companies" != wealth transfer to the rich
Your dreams of anarchism were manufactured in a bottle and sold to you on a silver screen.
(Edit: as acknowledged below, the final 'grow up' is a bit snarky. Sorry, that's withdrawn)
That doesn't diminish its value as a work of art or as a cultural reference point.
V for Vendetta is a ten-issue Graphic-Novel series written by Alan Moore and illustrated mostly by David Lloyd, set in a dystopian future United Kingdom imagined from the 1980s about the 1990s. A mysterious revolutionary who calls himself "V" works to destroy the totalitarian government, profoundly affecting the people he encounters. Warner Bros. released a film adaptation in 2006.
Suddenly corporate powers don't seem as strong. It's amazing how vulnerable something man made is.
That was a while back, but maybe they have legacy systems.
Either way, they are loosing money one way or another =/
1) It promotes freedom of speech and taking action as a community to promote change.
2) It is completely illegal which goes against the laws and freedoms they are trying to promote.
Right Idea - Wrong Method
That so many people are willing to break the law when taking action shows how important the issue is to them. It also suggests that there is no other effective way to take action.
I am still amused how quickly critical thinking switches off in many people. After initial categorization "wikileaks is good, government is bad" not much effort goes into actual considerations, how is it good, what good did it bring, etc.
Governments suck, uh oh, what a news. Maybe it will be a news to some, but we do elect governments. I guess it is easier to enjoy some braindead DDoS than go to elections, put some more thought whom to elect and make sure those elected are responsible for their work as officials.
Now it looks like governments were brought by some aliens and just forced on us. Demanding responsibility from the government is very good, how about taking some responsibility of the governments we have?
And that's where I have a problem with wikileaks: at least I can imagine that I had some say in what people do rule my country, so I can claim a bit responsibility for the power they have.
Wikileaks on the other hand is self-proclaimed savior, responsible to whom?
This is just not accurate in any meaningful way. I don't elect my government, and neither does anyone else here. I vote, but my vote's effect on what actually happens is so small it's not even measurable. Elections are not decided by thoughtful voters; they're decided by propagandists who control the majority of thoughtless voters.