WikiLeaks Defenders Threaten Amazon

healeyb writes "CNN is announcing that, starting at 11 AM EST, the hackers (coined Operation Payback) responsible for the DDoS attacks on MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, and PostFinance have promised to commence an attack against Amazon for their revocation of the WikiLeaks EC2 account. They released a do-it-yourself hacking tool online Thursday so other people can help with the attacks they say took down the websites of MasterCard and Visa..."

Comments

M.A.D.

[tverbeek]

Somehow I don't see escalation of online actions being to anyone's benefit in the long run.

Re:M.A.D.

[SuperRenaissanceMan]

No. A site slowdown could hurt Amazon's holiday sales, but not nearly as much as the government could for aiding a "terrorist."

Re:M.A.D.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's the terrorist? The one who did the *acts* reported in the documentation? Or the one who's letting others know they did it?

I know which it is, and it's not the one's letting the cat out of the bag.

That's right, the good ole US Gubernment is the terrorist now.

Re:M.A.D.

[dougmc]

We'll just call anybody a terrorist nowadays, won't we?

Re:M.A.D.

[Marc Desrochers]

Pretty much. There always an "ist" of some sort to battle against. There were fascists, that went away. Then came communists, that got old. Now it's terrorist. You have to tell people who the bad guys are or else they start looking at what you've been up to.

Re:M.A.D.

[Stregano]

Nope, just another mother who forgot to put the final D in MADD

Re:M.A.D.

[Motard]

Yes, this will likely have the effect of governments exerting greater control over the internet - exactly what the script kiddies would be most outraged by.

Re:M.A.D.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who wants to flay is a terrorist. The only way to stop terrorism is molesting people. They haven't found any bombs yet, but that's proves that it's working.

Re:M.A.D.

[Gohtar]

I am not sure why we are calling these script kiddies hackers. There is no hacking going on at all.

Re:M.A.D.

[spun]

Anyone who wants to flay is a terrorist. The only way to stop terrorism is molesting people. They haven't found any bombs yet, but that's proves that it's working.

Doesn't that depend on what you want to flay? I mean, flaying a deer is okay. Flaying a TSA agent, not so much.

Re:M.A.D.

[sycodon]

Essentially they are saying that if you don't agree with them and/or support their cause, they are going to blockade your business.

It's not a boycott and it's not a protest. It is actively interfering with business. No different than parking a cement truck in front of the doors.

If this becomes acceptable, then no one with a web presence is immune to wackos with a grudge or those with legitimate beefs.

Re:M.A.D.

[spidercoz]

To quote the Prophet Bueller, "Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself."

Re:M.A.D.

[eldavojohn]

Pretty much. There always an "ist" of some sort to battle against. There were fascists, that went away. Then came communists, that got old. Now it's terrorist.

How do I move it along to lobbyist?

You have to tell people who the bad guys are or else they start looking at what you've been up to.

From Bob Dylan's "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues" at the end once the narrator has picked over his friends and family and everyone else with a fine tooth comb:

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

Someone needs to update that song for DHS and TSA.

Re:M.A.D.

[da5idnetlimit.com]

There has been a few days (and a few harrassing plane tranfers) where the flaying of a TSA agent would have been welcome...

Re:M.A.D.

[mweather]

I think you underestimate Amazon's holiday sales, or overestimate the penalties they could face for hosting wikileaks.

Re:M.A.D.

[DMiax]

There was no business reason for Amazon to quit working with Wikileaks, they did nothing illegal. Amazon interfered in the freedom of Wikileaks to appease US and other governments. This is the thing that justifies a truck on the front door, IMO. If we accept their behaviour USG can effectively destroy freedom of speech by proxy. Do you think this is much different than having US arrest Assange and seizing his properties?

Re:M.A.D.

[cgenman]

Not the same, but related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZM4Bpt3xZU

Re:M.A.D.

[sycodon]

So if I don't like the comments on Slashdot, it's perfectly acceptable for me to rent a botnet and DDOS shut Slashdot down?

Re:M.A.D.

[dougmc]

because nobody remembers the term "phreaking"

Of course we do (and if we don't, we can look it up), but "phreaking" was always about mucking with phone systems and the like. The term is too specific.

"Crackers" is a better term, but really, "script kiddies" works just fine too.

And lots of the "phreakers" were just "script kiddies" and lots of them were true "hackers".

Re:M.A.D.

[Malc]

It is acceptable isn't it? This is the online version of thousands of protesters turning up and blockading bricks and mortar businesses. So far they haven't been banned.

Welcome to the digital age.

Re:M.A.D.

[Mongoose Disciple]

There was no business reason for Amazon to quit working with Wikileaks, they did nothing illegal.

Wrong!

Amazon has a business reason to do anything that makes them money, or avoids costing them money.

A shitload of people in America (which does not include me, but you've got your head in the sand if you don't notice the sentiment over this) are seriously pissed at Assange and WikiLeaks and want them prosecuted in all kinds of ways that, frankly, are not legally possible.

Do you think Amazon would make more money by dumping WikiLeaks, or by letting the frothing mob above boycott them?

There are more people in America who want to burn Assange at the stake than want to defend him. Washing your hands of the whole thing as best you can is the smart business decision.

Re:M.A.D.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Statistically, there are no terrorists. They already don't exist -- even those which are CIA false flags or FBI entrapment.

Re:M.A.D.

[uglyduckling]

I was thinking about this on my way to work this morning. I wonder whether it might be legitimate protest to stage a DDOS. IRL, the pubic at large can choose to blockage a company headquarters or a branch office, and if enough of the public are interested and concerned by the cause they can create disruption and media interest. DDOS attacks could be regarded as the online equivalent - they create disruption but when the attack ceases everything goes back to normal. The mainstream media tends to report these as 'hacking' attacks, which isn't really true at all, and it's certainly not terrorism.

Re:M.A.D.

[Chakra5]

Who's the terrorist? The one who did the *acts* reported in the documentation? Or the one who's letting others know they did it?

eerrrr......exactly which "acts" are you referring to that we should accept as terrorism again? Help a guy see your point of view please.

Re:M.A.D.

[MozeeToby]

Yep, it's almost like if a group of people came in and took all the seats in the local diner and refused to leave, just because said diner refused to serve them.

Actively interfering with business can be a legitimate form of protest. In this case, I don't feel that it's right, since Amazon was forced to either capitulate or risk significant reprisals from the US government. It would be like blacks staging a sit-in at a privately owned diner, that was ordered by the feds to segregate, the owners of the diner aren't really the ones you should be pissed at.

Re:M.A.D.

[MillionthMonkey]

Pretty much. There always an "ist" of some sort to battle against.

Christ!

Re:M.A.D.

[Zorpheus]

DOS attacks often work with random faked sender IP adresses, so the DOSed server can not just filter out the computers doing the attack. Wouldn't a filter at the providers for fake sender IPs make DOS attacks nearly impossible?

Re:M.A.D.

[boxo1]

Yes, this will likely have the effect of governments exerting greater control over the internet - exactly what the script kiddies would be most outraged by.

Exactly. I read somewhere: "They'll have to shut down the internet to stop us"
Um, yeah. And that would be good how?

I don't see the internet being shut down, but I wouldn't be surprised at declining internet freedom in direct proportion to the success of "operation payback".

Re:M.A.D.

[mcgrew]

Actually, since MADD seems to be completely prohibitionist, rather than simply against drunk driving, they probably should chage the name to MAD -- Mothers Against Drinking.

I prefer DAMM -- Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Re:M.A.D.

[JockTroll]

Understand this: the governments have been trying to exert ABSOLUTE control over the internet from quite a time, and they won't stop. Nothing we do or do not do will change that. The choice is between taking it up the bunghole like good slaves or fight back even if the odds are far from fair. I say we fight.

Re:M.A.D.

[flyingsquid]

Who's the terrorist? The one who did the *acts* reported in the documentation? Or the one who's letting others know they did it? I know which it is, and it's not the one's letting the cat out of the bag. That's right, the good ole US Gubernment is the terrorist now.

If you actually read Assange's writings, what comes across is that he views the world through the lens of conspiracies. In his view, conspiracies are networks of people who communicate privately to achieve some end. His insight is that an authoritarian conspiracy can't function without private communicaton. If conspirators are reluctant to communicate for fear of being exposed, then the network loses effectiveness. For an example of how this would work, consider how it would become harder for organized crime to conduct their operations if they knew that their communications were being intercepted by the police.

As far as I can tell, Assange is out to undermine authoritarian conspiracies and he views the United States as one of those. What follows is that in the release of these documents, Wikileaks isn't functioning as a whistleblower calling attention to individual misdeeds. Wikileaks is trying to undermine the effectiveness of the entire network, the entire conspiracy that is the U.S. government. That's why they plan to release all 250,000 cables, rather than just the cables that show evidence of wrongdoing. If you think Assange is out to point out a few bad apples, you're thinking too small. Assange wants to burn down the whole damn orchard. The damage done to American foreign policy isn't collateral damage, it's the entire point of the leaks.

Re:M.A.D.

[Red Flayer]

I resent this entire line of discussion.

Re:M.A.D.

[dougmc]

Then they came for the Terrorists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Terrorist.

So the jews are the terrorists in this story?

It's a nice analogy, except that being a fascist is pretty vague (and really isn't illegal, and really, average citizens are typically not called fascists), being Communist isn't illegal, but being a terrorist certainly is illegal (or doing what terrorists do, anyways.)

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things aren't the same ...

The original was about Communists, trade unionists and Jews.

DIY hacking tool?

[Hatta]

Is wget in a while loop insufficient?

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be more interesting if they could run the tool from within EC2.

just sayin'

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[entotre]

The 'hacking tool' for everyone: object on F5-key

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[Domini]

Yes it is, but "wget &" in a loop is more what they're going for... except they modify wget so that it does not also kill your machine...

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[the_one(2)]

Take a look at LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon). The sourcecode is on sourceforge and everything=). An encyclopedia dramatica page on the subject can be found here

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[Hatta]

So all you really need is wget, while, and nice.

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[multipartmixed]

And a process list which can be longer than the number of sockets you can open at once...

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[melikamp]

Shhhh, you gonna shatter script bunnies' illusions of grandeur.

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[MachDelta]

http://sourceforge.net/projects/hivemindloic/files/Source/

Re:DIY hacking tool?

[iter8]

The pseudocode for LOIC is:
1. Post article on /. about Amazon being shutdown
2. /.'ers rush to amazon.com to see if it's true
3. Success!

Hackers?

[Degenerateuk]

Yet another case of script kiddies giving hackers a bad name...

DIY hacking tools

[digitaldc]

really isn't 'hacking' - or is it?

This news did nothing more than re-direct a lot of people to Amazon.com just to see if it was working. Then, they got distracted searching for something cool and subsequently made a few purchases.

Re:DIY hacking tools

[nospam007]

Good tactic.
Get millions of people to buy tons of stuff and return it the next week.

That isn't fixable with a few server upgrades.

 

Re:DIY hacking tools

[miro2]

Yes, its not 'hacking' and these are not 'attacks' and there is no 'war.' Those are loaded terms, and they are being used in order to make it seem like this is not an ethical politically-motivated action. Participants are not stealing or damaging property. They are simply taking up bandwidth. This is firmly in the tradition of passive resistance, in which protesters enter a business or property and simply take up space to prevent business from occurring (i.e., lunch counter sit-ins). The terms we should be using are 'protest' or 'online sit-in' and the hackers should be called 'protesters.'

Slashdot editors: please stop calling these 'attacks.'

This makes it worse

[Antisyzygy]

The US government now has another excuse for an internet-wide crackdown. Thanks assholes.

Re:This makes it worse

[healeyb]

The fear of a government crackdown is probably the best possible excuse to continue what you are doing.

Re:This makes it worse

[Antisyzygy]

I don't know about that. I think certain people in the government are just waiting for something like this to happen to help convince the 80 percent of the US that are morons its time to "stop the cyber-terrorists". Then its unique ID's on the internet, centralized and monitored network hubs, ect. Maybe Im being a tin-foil hat nut but I don't have alot of faith in the US population that allows themselves to be duped into the Patriot act and TSA gropings.

Re:This makes it worse

[bill_mcgonigle]

The US government now has another excuse for an internet-wide crackdown. Thanks assholes.

What makes you think this isn't a false-flag operation? Duck, signed comms coming this way.

Re:This makes it worse

[healeyb]

You may be right. But to resolve to sit quietly and just take it all out of fear isn't the solution.

Re:This makes it worse

[retech]

Precisely. In the end we'll look back and see the mountains of spin the US Gov', CNN and FOX put on this to convince the world that hackers will eventually take over the world. They'll cite stats on how they compromise this or that. They'll interview ppl who had their identity stolen and close the interview with things like: "..it's only a matter of time before we all end up like John here."

While I do think their heart is in the right place, this is a woefully misplaced effort. If they could instead boycott all these places. If they could get say an 80% reduction in customers of PayPal and Amazon for a month, that would seriously damage them. If they could get a global effort of people to not use their Visa or MC for 6 months, that would make everyone take notice. But sadly, like much of the current social spectrum, they'll have a kneejerk reaction, applaud themselves and then forget about it. But the gov't's and corporations will NOT. We will all pay for this type of behaviour.

I'm left to ask: Why Wikileaks? Why not fight for the stack of equally as good social causes and try to stop the mountain of injustice we have? Oh, yeah, cuz this is the hot topic du jour.

Re:This makes it worse

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it we say around here? The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers? Or something like that.

Bring it. You're a shuddering fucking pansy who fears the government. The government should fear YOU.

Re:This makes it worse

[Antisyzygy]

I'm left to ask: Why Wikileaks? Why not fight for the stack of equally as good social causes and try to stop the mountain of injustice we have? Oh, yeah, cuz this is the hot topic du jour.

The US government is perpetrating quite a lot of the social injustices these days IMHO.

Re:This makes it worse

[Antisyzygy]

Im not suggesting that. It be more effective to get people involved in a boycott of Visa and Mastercard. Some people can survive only on cash in their wallet for a few months (by that I mean they take it out of the bank when they need it rather than use a Visa or Mastercard).

Re:This makes it worse

[JackieBrown]

The government should fear YOU.

This is no more true than my employer should fear me. Government and citizenship should be a positive relationship not a conflicting one.

I am aware that it does not usually work out this way, but I am really sick of the Vendetta quotes.

Re:This makes it worse

[1u3hr]

When has a boycott ever been successful?

Rhodesia.

Gandhi's boycott of British textiles.

Court order on coverage?

[healeyb]

gawker has said, although unsubstantiated, that websites are being handed federal orders to stop chronicling the attacks. If true (which it very well may not be), I would be very curious to learn on what grounds the coverage is being ordered to stop.

Is this really hacking?

[Dyinobal]

I honestly don't see how this can be considered 'hacking' to me it sounds like cyber vandalism. A petty crime for petty reasons. Amazon had valid reasons for dropping wikileaks, they aren't crusaders they are a business. This is pretty much tantamount to being the jackass that sits at the red light until it's yellow and then gunning it through the intersection, to make the rest of the people behind you wait for the next light.

Re:Is this really hacking?

[sockonafish]

If dropping Wikileaks ends up disrupting their sales, then maybe they'll think twice before dropping a customer that the State Department dislikes. The DDoS attacks are giving them a business reason NOT to drop Wikileaks.

Re:Is this really hacking?

[Tridus]

If that were true, Amazon would probably want to stop selling the ebook of the cables in question.

Re:Is this really hacking?

[ScentCone]

The DDoS attacks are giving them a business reason NOT to drop Wikileaks

No. The DDoS attacks are giving all sorts of companies strong reasons to never so business with Wikileaks, and to think twice about making their TOS even more oriented around making it easy to give jackass users the bum's rush. Do you really think that being attacked by a bunch of rebel-without-a-clue script kiddies who are doing this strictly because it's passingly fashionable is actually going to make Amazon want to host content for an oily ego-maniac like Assange? This DDoS attack is going to have exactly the opposite of its intended effect. It's making the vandals look like shrill punks, and it's going to attract all sorts of law enforcement (and later, regulatory) heat of exactly the sort that the Anonymous crowd hates. This displays a classically juvenile lack of getting the big picture. It's an adolescent tantrum.

This one could actually hurt

[MetalliQaZ]

If they were able to actually knock Amazon offline, which I think is mostly unlikely to happen, it would be the first to make a serious economic impact. Mastercard's website may have been unreachable, but their credit processing facilities were just fine, as I demonstrated with my own card several times over the past few days. Amazon, on the other hand, is in the middle of their holiday rush, which is crucially important to them. IIRC, it is the reason they had the cloud infrastructure in the first place: their immense holiday resources went unused during the rest of the year. The last thing they need is a DDoS attack right now. I wonder if they might try to appease the mob with some kind of nod to anon in the form of a daily book deal or similar...

DDOSing Amazon will be a challenge

[FlameWise]

Considering Wikileaks rehosted to Amazon to escape their original sites getting DDOSed exactly BECAUSE Amazon is damn hard to DDOS, I wonder whether Payback can actually do that.

Maybe they just consider it a challenge they can't resist.

So

[Kymation]

My cat is a hacking tool?

DDOSing

[Dan East]

I think that those holding the reigns of the botnets doing the current DDOSing are making massive mistakes employing them at this time. Not only that, the targets they are choosing are not valuable. Take for example visa.com and mastercard.com. Have you ever been to those sites? For all intent and purposes they are superficial, and have nothing to do with the logistics of the financial services they provide. If you go to either site and try to view financial information you will be given a list of banks that issue that type of card, which provides links to the respective banks that actually issue cards.

Furthermore, the various governments of the world are watching this whole affair with intense scrutiny, and the powers that be will be alarmed over the power wielded by these botnets. It will serve as a wake-up call. By utilizing their resources, these people have shown their hand and provided the evidence and forensics needed to aid in the dissemination of those nets.

As far as Amazon goes, they are so distributed and have such massive resources that I doubt a DDOS attack would have much effect. I might be wrong, but there is a world of difference between Amazon and public relations sites like visa.com and mastercard.com.

Re:DDOSing

[stand]

DDoS attacks should be opposed regardless of the target. The Internet (for better or worse) operates on the "Play Nice" principle.

No official attack orders yet

[Predius]

11:50EST and the target change off api.paypal.com hasn't taken place. There is serious internal strife as to weather or not to attack Amazon at all given that they so far haven't been able to reliably take out paypal.

Re:No official attack orders yet

[hedwards]

To be fair, I'm guessing that has to do with PayPal being unredeemably evil and Amazon being only very evil.

DDoS Attacks, or Rightful Protest?

[bradgoodman]

One could argue that people launching DDoS "attacks" are in-fact perusing a rightful protest.

Isn't having a script to continually request a page for one web site the technical equivilant of marching back and forth in front of a building holding a picket sign?

Why should people have the right to do both if they are unhappy with - and wish to protest a government, company or organization?

I am *not* saying it is right or legal for people to write trojan horses to set up botnets to con others' computers to unknowingly (or unwillingly) do ones bidding - but isn't it completely within an individuals right to do this themselves, from their own homes, with their own equipment?

P.S. I don't think the Wikileaks leaks did *any* damage whatsoever. It may have "undignified" a few "dignitaries" - but that's it. Period. In reality, I think it does the world a *lot* of good when everyone suddenly can see everyone elses cards - and know their thoughts and opinions.

Re:DDoS Attacks, or Rightful Protest?

[emgarf]

If you are depriving someone else of their right to choose to be a patron of an online -or- brick/mortar store by a DoS, it's not a righteous protest any more.

Re:DDoS Attacks, or Rightful Protest?

[fusiongyro]

I don't disagree with you strongly, but I think there are a few points that make the situation a little murkier.

Protesters outside buildings carry signs that indicate why they're pissed off. When you DDOS a website, all you can do is take it offline. There's no way to see the protestors' messages online, so most of the citizenry who hear about this are going to hear about it from a news source. And as you know, the news sources in our country are much better at being entertainment than being unbiased or informative.

Also, at least in America, your right to protest does not grant you the right to interfere with my right to obtain services. So this protest is rather unlike picketing in at least two ways.

I also tend to agree with you about secrecy, but in this particular case, the vast majority of the content is diplomat A dissing diplomat B or country C. This is just politics. If you have more than a few friends, you probably have some things you tell one and some things you tell another and sometimes you tell one about the follies of another. That's just the way people are. Obviously it would be bad if one of your friends dissed another one and it got back to them, so it makes sense to me for diplomatic cables to be classified.

The other thing to note is that our government has many secrecy levels, and gaining access to the lower levels is not particularly hard. In this case, most of the cables are at low secrecy levels which are appropriate to their content. It's appropriate for our diplomat to Saudi Arabia to kiss the king's ass publicly and shit-talk him privately with superiors at home. That's what diplomacy is. Of course leaking this does damage, but it's far from being a threat to national security.

I argued earlier that WikiLeaks is using the wrong approach, and I think this is another fine example of it. Dropping tons of material on our country's feeble journalists will only make the story about the size of the leak rather than the content of it. They would do better to leak a little high-profile, actually bad stuff and then release the bulk. They're not leaking this with the intention of effecting positive change in our government by exposing unethical behavior. It's easy to see them as just leaking whatever secrets they can get their hands on for their own self-aggrandizement.

I agree with the idea of WikiLeaks, but the execution thus far leaves much to be desired.

Inaccuracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOIC is a tool that has been around for a while. Why would they say it was released Thursday?

Shunning

[srussia]

Shunning plus Direct democracy equals this.

Going from stupid to outright insane...

[mseeger]

When someone who says "X is violating the freedom of speech rights" and tries to shut him/her/it up as punishment, than that person has not yet grasped the principle of "freedom of speech".

On the tactical level: Disrupting Amazon such a short time before christmas? Fox will have a field day.... At best it will convince the average man/woman on the street, that Wikileaks is evil (since they won't distinguish between Wikileaks and their anonymous supporters). It's like saying "We are facing a supperior enemy, let's make more of them". To mee it looks like some kind of Anti-Sun-Tzu or Clausewitz-in-reverse. Is there goal beyond "venting frustration"?

CU, Martin

Re:Going from stupid to outright insane...

[Mindcontrolled]

One of them is a member of the press distributing information, one of them is a business collaborating with a government in the suppression of freedom of the press. Do you see a difference there?

Amazon?

[cgenman]

How exactly do you take Amazon's servers offline? Amazon is the people you cloud your servers to when you're out of capacity. Visa / Mastercard / Paypal... Sure. Plausible targets. DDosing Amazon is like trying to DDos Google, and only 1 hop away from ddosing 127.0.0.1.

Now, if they specifically targeted one part of Amazon's infrastructure... say, their payment validation server, they might be somewhere. But all of Amazon?

Re:So now we MUST follow Wikileaks agenda?

[hedwards]

You don't have to. You could fight Wikileaks or you could stay out of it entirely. So, with three basic realms of possibility, I'd say that freedom still exists. Freedom does not ensure that all possibilities are particularly appetizing.

Digital riot

[demonbug]

A bunch of angry idiots decide to have themselves a little riot, do some burning and head-cracking, and so far hardly a comment questioning whether this is in any way appropriate? I don't like the efforts to destroy/discredit Wikileaks any more than most here, but I hope the perpetrators of these "retaliatory" crimes feel the full weight of the law coming down on them. Absolutely disgusting to be violently attacking a business because that business made a decision that you disagree with. I have no patience or sympathy for these criminals (and I'm about out of patience with the fucktards who call themselves Anonymous).

You want to call a boycott? Fine. I might even join you. But the second you start attacking them and doing damage, you have crossed the line and deserve to be thrown in jail. There is no valid reason for this, just a bunch of thugs looking for some amusement.

Re:Digital riot

[rawler]

But the second you start attacking them and doing damage, you have crossed the line and deserve to be thrown in jail.

If there is permanent damage done to the site, yes, it's clearly vandalism in the worst form, and clearly punishable by law in any country.

A DDoS however, is more akin to a blockade, which occasionally happens in real world too. Even here there are variations of course, from the absolutely peaceful standing passively in the way, to the outright aggressive.

If the DDoS is performed by botnet's it's clearly equivalent of bearing arms, which sometimes leads to individual prosecution. The same should go for the botnet-driven DDoS.

If the DDoS is performed by regular users, using nothing but their own connections to "block the entrance", it's clearly equivalent of passively standing in the way, which may be countered by dispersion-tactics, but hardly ever lead to actual prosecution in a democratic regime.

Inviting prosecution

[The Dodger]

The use of this LOIC tool that this group are encouraging people to download onto their PCs and fire up to launch these DDoS attacks will be easily detectable and tracable. I'm sure that the companies that are being attacked will be keeping records of the malicious traffic, to be passed on to the police who will, in turn, be able to tie the IP addresses back to broadband connections.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if we see raids, confiscation of computer equipment and (in the UK, at least) charges brought under the Computer Misuse Act. I wonder what the average decline in income is, due to one's inability to get certain jobs because of a criminal record.

And, by the way, those who think that they can get away with it by claiming that it must be a virus infection are deluded - forensic examination will reveal the deliberate downloading of the LOIC tool.

Self-defeating

[hessian]

The powers that be: You need strong government and law enforcement because most people are unruly vandals.

Anonymous: We believe in a more anarchistic world, and so we're going to vandalize things until disorder comes about.

Silent Majority: Guess the powers that be called that one right.

BAD idea

[Joey Vegetables]

There are morally, ethically and legally sound ways to protest Amazon's actions if you feel as I do that they were unacceptable. Committing crimes against it, and its customers, is not one of those ways. It is not morally acceptable, and it takes away any moral high ground one might otherwise have had. FYI, I believe Amazon was coerced to some unknown but probably large degree by the government. There is no way to be sure, but I believe that it was, and I have tempered my own response accordingly. I have canceled plans to move some hosting to Amazon in 2011, both to protests its actions and also because it has demonstrated an unwillingness to host material of a potentially controversial nature. However I continue to do business with it as a retailer, since as far as I'm aware Amazon's retail business has behaved in a morally, ethically and legally sound fashion.

Re:BAD idea

[russotto]

There are morally, ethically and legally sound ways to protest Amazon's actions if you feel as I do that they were unacceptable.

Morally, ethically, and legally sound, yet completely ineffective.

Useful link.

[Kaz Kylheku]

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/civil_disobedience.html :)

Re:I went to Amazon and made a purchase

[spynode]

Hatred of US? You are so full of shit... I don't know, maybe you really think that this is aimed towards American people, but those who fight against bureaucracy and it's tendency to lie are in fact trying to help you and your children. I don't know about this particular group and their true motives but this is in no way a manifestation of hatred towards the US.

Stop using the word 'Attack'

[miro2]

These are not attacks. This is not a war. A politically motivated DDOS is exactly analogous in form and function to a lunch counter sit-in. These should be called 'protests' or 'online sit-ins.' Use of the words like 'war' and 'attack' only fuels a belief that there is no justified ethical motivation for these protests.

Re:Stop using the word 'Attack'

[Duradin]

How do you ask a DDoS to leave and when they do not comply have them hauled out by the cops for trespassing?

Re:Stop using the word 'Attack'

[miro2]

Actually, that's the first intelligent response I have seen to the DDOS=sit-in analogy. You have a very good point. In some ways this is much closer to a sit-in in which participants actually handcuff themselves to objects in the business. Its still not an attack.

Analogies between the real and virtual world are bound to be flawed. But calling it a hacker attack is extremely misleading to a public that imagines the attackers are breaking in to computers and damaging them or stealing data. Despite the analogy's flaws "sit-in" is much more accurate than "attack."

Re:I went to Amazon and made a purchase

[DogDude]

"Hatred of the US"? Sounds like somebody has been spending too much time watching Fox News...

Double standards much?

[SmallFurryCreature]

So Amazon doesn't agree with Wikileaks cause and blocked their business. But that is fair in your eyes, but the same can not be done in reverse?

My my, how you grovel at your masters feed as the perfect sheep unwilling to question anything.

Basically you claim that you are free, just as long as you don't upset anyone in power.

Re:Double standards much?

[sycodon]

No, Amazon choose not to do business with Wikileaks . They did not block Wikileaks actions in any way.

Wikileaks is free to find someone else to perform what Amazon's former function.

Re:Double standards much?

[hsmith]

You aren't comparing like things. Denying Amazon servers the right to serve up their own content is not the same as Amazon not hosting Wikileaks. They aren't even in the same ballpark. The right to refuse to do business with someone, for whatever reason is no where near the same as denying OTHERS the right to do business with someone.

Re:Double standards much?

[MachDelta]

Not authorized to publish? Wikileaks does not need the U.S. government's permission to publish anything. They have no official presence in the US. And even if they were an American company, there is a little thing called freedom of speech and the freedom of the presses which would protect them. Also, they have not yet been designated a terrorist group (or similar), so the only thing here that is illegal (aside from the private who initially leaked the cables - but he's in jail) is the US State Department trying to intimidate American businesses into not interacting with Wikileaks. THAT is illegal. The response from Anonymous is probably also (technically) illegal, but when the government misbehaves, law goes out the window.

Re:Double standards much?

[cmorriss]

You're just not getting it. Here's another analogy that will hopefully clarify why they are two completely different things.

Suppose Julian wanted to print out a thousand page book containing the classified material and sell it in Barnes and Noble. Barnes and Noble doesn't really want to have something like that on their shelves so they decide not to sell it. Then some protesters proceed to block the entrance to the stores, not allowing anyone in or out just because they wouldn't sell Julian's book of CLASSIFIED government documents.

And this sounds right to you? Really? Because at this point you're denying the business the right to choose how they run their business. Julian can sell his book at other places just fine, but just because this one doesn't do it, it's time to raise the pitch forks and light the fires.

Amazon's reason not valid

[Geof]

Amazon had valid reasons for dropping wikileaks

What, that WikiLeaks did not "own" the documents? Copyright infringement? Under U.S. law, material produced by the government are public domain - it belongs to the public. How is a bogus claim of copyright infringement "valid"?

Operation Foot Bullet in full swing!

[Python]

This reminds me of when the church of $cientology tried this same sort of tactic, punish your rivals with a DOS attack to teach them a lesson and hope that they change their ways (or that no one else repeats the same actions). In that case it was a massive multi-year flood of certain usenet groups, and its probably easier to see how the badguy was - but the method was the same and the result I suspect will be the same: It backfired on the co$ and I think the same if going to happen to here too to wikileaks. Wteher they have anything to with it or not (and I suspect they don't directly have anything to do with). Its not going to get wikileaks any sympathy, its not going to change the stance of companies like Amazon and Mastercard (give in to one DOS attack, then you need to give into the next one, etc.) and its going to scare away other businesses from every working with Wikileaks in the future. Why should a business take the chance, if you bring on wikileaks as a client and you can't handle the heat wikileaks fanboys will DOS you. Safe beat, don't do business with wikileaks.

So this is either a misguided attempt to help wikileaks, or a damn clever attack on wikileaks by destroying any chance they have of working with anyone else. Either way it seems to me (and what the hell do I know) that this going to backfire.

Any Substance to This?

[Billy the Mountain]

I'll usually believe something if it appears in the media but I'm not sure I believe this one. OTFA, The blogger says the group in question has a DIY hacking tool, yet there's no link.

If this is all made up, OTOH, I could see how governments publicizing supposed attacks by Wikileak sympathizers would sway general opinion against WikiLeaks as being aggressive nuisances.

Re:Counterproductive

[DMiax]

Mastercard and Paypal admitted that they pulled the plug under pressure from the USG. Why do you think Visa and Amazon did it?

A good 50% of US people here claims that the right to bear arms is to revolt against oppressive government. Let's see where they stay on this one non-violent revolt...

Re:Counterproductive

[MachDelta]

The sites themselves are hypocritical. Mastercard and Visa both stopped accepting payments for Wikileaks for policy breach (or some shit like that) yet you can still make donations to the goddamn KKK through them. Paypal admitted that the US state department forced them to drop their Wikileaks account. Amazon was just peachy fine with hosting Wikileaks and then mysteriously they kicked them out. Same with the swiss bank that was happy to hold an account for them up until recently, and also the random reappearance of "sexual assault" charges which were dismissed earlier.

Essentially this is the US gubberment on one side pressuring businesses to "do what we want, regardless of weather or not our threats are legal" and the public (Anonymous) on the other side saying "don't give in to the gubberment or we'll attack you, regardless of weather or not that's legal"

Who's right? No one.

Let me put it simply and bluntly :

[unity100]

If the only option you leave for people is DDOS, they will ddos.

people talk 10+ hours for minimum wage. people tend their kids. people are studying in colleges by paying to them, in order to have a chance at future. those who have established some career, are busy paying bills.

they dont have the time or resources or the means to mount and run nation-spanning political campaigns, engage in social activity for prolonged periods. they have lives that they are forced to attend to.

and, in the end, because of all these necessities our current dog-eat-dog capitalist system enforces upon people (its always good to cut benefits, social security, and wages for profit after all, aint it ..), what's left to people ?

hitting 'like' button on facebook, doing comments under online news stories, discussing in forums, instant messengers, online blabber. maybe donating a few bucks to a ngo. and the most extreme of what they can do online, ends up being DDOS. they cant even do serious hacks, they dont time or the means to learn and further any knowledge in that area.

and they do this. ddos. because, this is the travesty of a situation our current society manufactures, and then pays for. the ironic thing is, the very perpetrators, creators of this situation, the big corporations, end up on the receiving end of this. hunter hunted.

no, ddos may not be ethically so justifiable. but, as said, if you leave the only option for people to DDOS, they will DDOS.

Re:Thus...

[Desler]

No, this proves that being worthless scum whores might have some consequences.

Which are what? A script kiddy mob is going to try to destroy your business in the name of "freedom"? While all that is being accomplished is the stifling of someone else's freedoms?

Mastercard, PayPal, Visa, EveryDNS and Amazon were all perfectly happy taking the money, they knew what they were taking money for and then chose later on to flip flop on the issue.

Bullshit. There is almost zero chance that any actual human was involved in the business transaction between Wikileaks and these companies until they were notified of the situation after the fact. It's all automated.

Let those with no terror, cast the first IED

[TiggertheMad]

We'll just call anybody a terrorist nowadays, won't we?

Quiet you terrorist, or you're next!