EasyDNS Falsely Accused of Unplugging WikiLeaks

kdawson writes "EasyDNS, a DNS and hosting provider, was mistakenly identified in press accounts as the entity that knocked wikileaks.org off the Net. It wasn't them, it was EveryDNS, a completely separate outfit. EasyDNS suffered a series of online reprisals as the false attribution spread. When WikiLeaks approached them to add to the robustness of their DNS support, EasyDNS said yes." And just to be fair on the disclosure thing- I've been using EasyDNS for many many many years and have always had great service, so I just thought it was cool that they stand up for the cause.

Comments

It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Aussenseiter]

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Anonymous Coward]

Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule! We're making a difference, people! Keep it up! Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule!

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Pojut]

Are you referring to the ones that shoot bees out of their mouth, or the ones with frikkin' laser beams attatched to their groins?

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[rtyhurst]

Yes!

DDoS them all, except Wikileaks of course.

Well, maybe them too just to show we mean business...

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The only thing worse than mob rule is oppressive tyranny.

Somehow a fear of the former has always been used, by the wealthy and powerful, to have the population embrace the latter...

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[OldeTimeGeek]

If you're not part of the mob there's very little difference.

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[PRMan]

It started with the first commenter on the TechDirt article who "corrected" Mike Masnick. It turns out that Mike was correct and the poster inadvertently caused all kinds of problems for EasyDNS.

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing worse than mob rule is oppressive tyranny.

Somehow a fear of the former has always been used, by the wealthy and powerful, to have the population embrace the latter...

The latter harms innocents. The former is harming innocents. It looks like a witch, so we should burn it!

The latter is FORMED by the former. The latter is avoided by cooler heads avoiding the former.

The latter is hyperbole by conspiracy theorists in terms of what the US is.. The former is demonstrably reality now.

I can't wait until the stories about the mob silencing innocent people who look kinda sorta like people who disagree with them start coming out, and then seeing everyone justify it as "well, it's better than that gosh-darn democratic/republic tyranny I'm certain would've happened if we looked harder and extrapolated more!".

Oh, wait, that's happening NOW.

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[dasunt]

It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!

Insanity wolf, is that you?

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[FatdogHaiku]

It looks like a witch, so we should burn it!

Now now, let's approach this logically... does it weigh the same as a duck?

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[WED Fan]

It started with the first commenter on the TechDirt article who "corrected" Mike Masnick. It turns out that Mike was correct and the poster inadvertently caused all kinds of problems for EasyDNS.

So, in order to punish those that did not support Wikileaks, the attackers effectively took out a DNS, thus denying access to Wikileaks.

There's something on the end of my foot!!! Shoot it!!!

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[nedlohs]

How is oppresive tyranny worse? I assume you have some metrics to justify the claim?

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, the mushroom hunting dogs...

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Chakra5]

Well said... tyranny [tir-uh-nee] –noun, plural -nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Who has the ability to exercise any checks on ANON beside the mob themselves? And from their missives and the clear high opinion of their own worth and righteousness, I think the word despot is applicable

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[Tanman]

Mob rule is almost indistinguishable from oppressive tyranny. See French Revolution, et al.

Re:It starts with an E and has "DNS" in it

[im_thatoneguy]

At least the totalitarian state gives the illusion of a legal/court system.

Truth matters?

[drumcat]

Accuracy matters not in Security Theatre.

Re:Truth matters?

[crush]

Seeing as you care about accuracy: the phrase "security theatre" doesn't mean what you think it does.

Re:Truth matters?

[Archangel Michael]

It is more than accuracy. THIS is why Vigilantism is wrong.

The problem here is that the mob doesn't care about innocents that get caught up in their self righteous indignation. They are no better than the tyrants whom they oppose.

Do not misunderstand me. I don't give a whit about Julian or his leaking wikis, and the idiots trying to kill the messenger. I do care about the idiot that had access to all the secrets and charged with keeping them secret violating that trust. I also care about the "secrecy" of public knowledge many of the cables, and why it was classified. There is almost nothing in what I've seen in the latest release that surprises me or something I already knew. It is all a bunch of *yawn* for me and not the "treasure" people think it is. I also care equally about the vigilantism that is brewing in the wake of this mess. Criminals are criminals.

I also wonder why the idiots running the vigilante mobs have targeted Sarah Palin for her comments, but not anyone in the Obama Administration for similar comments? Gee whiz, if that isn't transparent juvenile politics and a great reason why all the (R) bad (D) good types (and visa versa) should be simply ignored from now on.

Re:Truth matters?

[The Moof]

I don't give a whit about Julian or his leaking wikis, and the idiots trying to kill the messenger.

If you're an American, you should care because of our government's reaction, and more importantly, their actions as a result of it. We're not somehow magically impervious since we're American citizens. Also, us, as citizens, are becoming increasingly hated around the world as a result of their actions, despite having no influence on what our government does.

If you're not an American, you should care because my government has a really nasty habit of forcing your government into doing things (regardless if US citizens condone the action... most of us don't). Also, my government doesn't care if its actions are good or bad for your government's citizens, because they only believe in their own self-interests..

Re:Truth matters?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm American, and I find my government to be dysfunctional tyrants. The only reason we're not enslaved is that we don't have any competent people there ... yet.

And the government is getting a pass mostly because the people with the biggest problem with what the government is doing, are afraid to speak ill of the Messiah Kenyan running things at the moment, because they agree with him 90% of the time.

My point, be you (D) or (R) it doesn't matter, the government is the problem, not the solution. Security theater is wrong under Bush, it is even more wrong under Obama who has increased it to Pornscans and Sexual battery. WHERE are the liberals on this? WHY aren't they protesting with songs and PSAs and writing about how awful the Obama Administration is on HUMAN RIGHTS?

Don't get me wrong, the(R)s are just as bad, and worse in other areas. But I continue to wonder if Bush admin had done half the stuff Obama is doing what the reaction of the liberal media elites would be?

And all of this does not excuse Vigilante Justice by a bunch of wannabe hackers who hate the US. Which was my point. Perhaps they should DDOS the Pentagon and Whitehouse if they want to protest the US government, not VISA and Mastercard.

Of course they are too chicken from the comfort of their "command center" in mom's basement.

Re:Truth matters?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Do you honestly believe you are not enslaved? How cute.

Re:Truth matters?

[jebblue]

"Also, us, as citizens, are becoming increasingly hated around the world as a result of their actions, despite having no influence on what our government does." You need to get out more, come back when you have matured beyond 11 years of age.

Mob Justice

[Sonny Yatsen]

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech. But this isn't free speech anymore, it's just mob justice and there's no due process in mob justice.

Re:Mob Justice

[kalirion]

"The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters." - Terry Pratchett

Re:Mob Justice

[jovius]

EasyDNS seems to be condemned into oblivion by SlashMob. Free speech resulted in DDOS.

Re:Mob Justice

[Zedrick]

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing

Really? I've been reading most (probably all) wikileaks stories on slashdot since this whole mess started, and I got the impression that the vast majority of the slashdotters agree this is a stupid way to "support" wikileaks.

Re:Mob Justice

[MRe_nl]

There's no due process in mob justice.

There's no justice without due process.

What goes around comes around.

Re:Mob Justice

[gustgr]

You, sir, have made my day with that quote.

Re:Mob Justice

[petteyg359]

Neither is there due process in fascism.

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Better the justice of a mob than the "justice" of an international oligarchy of politicians too lazy or stupid to get a fucking grip on their own comms security. Wikileaks or an entity like it is now a permanent feature of the internet. If you try to amputate that feature, the internet will fight you off. And you'll always lose.

Re:Mob Justice

[houghi]

Well, then mob justice has a lot in common with any other justice.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

not really, most people on here aren't too hot on the DDOSing unless they're AC though the slashdot crowd are quicker to shout down some of the more idiotic/sensationalist claims (like people calling the DDOS a "violent attack" ) .

I support wikileaks, I don't support the DDoSing of sites of everyone who ceases doing buisness with them.

Re:Mob Justice

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech. But this isn't free speech anymore, it's just mob justice and there's no due process in mob justice.

There's actually quite a history of civil disobedience in the US. Boycotts, sit in's, protests all of which were illegal under the law and involved large numbers of citizens intentionally disobeying the law in order to get a point across and show public support. DDoSing Visa's Web site doesn't do any real damage to anything, with minimal financial damage and no one lynched. It does, however, bring attention to the issue and pressure corporations, lawmakers, and elected executives around the world to make a change.

When blacks were arrested by the hundreds for "hindering a bus" during the Rosa King chapter of the civil rights movement, those people were not using "due process" to change the segregation laws and they could just as easily be described as "mob justice" shutting down the bus system in a major US city. If the civil rights movement were happening now would they be arrested for terrorist acts sabotaging public transit?

While I'm not wholly for nor against the level of disclosure wikileaks seems to be presenting I do recognize this as a free speech/civil rights issue and if people feel strongly enough to risk their freedom via civil disobedience movements like this, I can respect that. To dismiss it as "undemocratic" or "mob justice" is to ignore very important lessons from our not so distant history.

Re:Mob Justice

[Tridus]

I don't know what this article has to do with mob justice. Perhaps you want the previous one about attacking Amazon.

In this case, people were accusing EasyDNS of doing something they didn't do. That includes the mainstream media, who seemed to borrow the story from Twitter without bothering to fact check. This story is correcting the record.

There's no "mob rule" here, unless by mob you mean the media.

Re:Mob Justice

[PRMan]

I think when there's little due process in "actual" justice, people start cheering on mob justice.

Re:Mob Justice

[Quiet_Desperation]

But this isn't free speech anymore, it's just mob justice and there's no due process in mob justice.

Actually, I didn't start cheering *until* it become mob justice. :-)

It gives a happy to the little anarchist that lives in my black, stunted heart.

Re:Mob Justice

[BJ_Covert_Action]

So many people, especially the slashdot crowd, are cheering on Anonymous and other parties who are DDOSing parties involved in the whole Wikileaks thing as some sort of testament to free speech.

No, I don't think that's all that fair of a brush to paint with. In the last story on the /. main page, the one regarding Anon's threat of DDOSing Amazon, I just read at least five highly moderated comments that read along the lines of, "This is a criminal activity and the idiots doing it should be persecuted as such." I also read a few, "They're only making things worse. Retards..."

So saying that slashdot is cheering on Anonymous is pretty disingenuous. So far as I can tell, the slashdot crowd is pretty evenly divided on this particular topic, as they are on most (not all) things.

Re:Mob Justice

[tnk1]

No, they're cheering it on because its like bloodsport for IT professionals.

"Oh man! That DDOS had to HURT!"

"No way man! Amazon's got MOVES. Its probably got some sort of adaptive algorithm on their upstream routers that is intercepting and discarding most of the packets."

"Fuck that, nothing can stop an attack that big, who do you think they are, the NSA?"

"They've got a CLOUD, man. Besides the NSA are pussies. Everyone knows that they don't even have enough power at Fort Meade to even run half that shit."

Re:Mob Justice

[CAIMLAS]

It never was "Free Speech", it was just vigilante justice. It's become 'mob justice' simply by the popular appeal.

I don't agree with much of what Wikileaks has done; I think Asange should be hung by his toes until his legs are free of blood. But at the same time, the "System" has wronged him - and more importantly, wronged the Process of Law. The System - government and corporations/banks - are way out of line. In these kinds of situations, it would seem that it takes Mob Rule for justice to be served.

Re:Mob Justice

[hedwards]

What goes around may come around, but mysteriously it always seems to hit the worst actors last.

Re:Mob Justice

[Tx]

To be fair, there also seems to be a failure of due process when ISPs and payment processors are pressured into cutting off wikileaks, without wikileaks having been found guilty of any crime. The anonymous guys presumably want to balance things up a little. Whether they're doing it the right way is open to question, but nobody else seems to be sticking up for wikileaks.

Re:Mob Justice

[hedwards]

The media is allowed to get away with that far too often under the guise of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was intended to ensure that the press could report on potential malfeasance on the part of government officials, not as a way of protecting the press from having to do their due diligance.

Many lives have been ruined by the press publishing the names of accused pedophiles and rapists who turned out to be innocent and were also acquitted at trial. The coverage in some of those cases would go on for years, leading people to remember the individual as guilty rather than the later article, assuming it was published at all, where the individual was acquitted. Richard Jewell is probably one of the best examples out there, although there is also Michael Jackson who will always be regarded as guilty, despite being acquitted.

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

There's actually quite a history of civil disobedience in the US. Boycotts, sit in's, protests all of which were illegal under the law and involved large numbers of citizens intentionally disobeying the law in order to get a point across and show public support.

Boycotts are legal. As are some sit in's and most protests.

Re:Mob Justice

[MacGyver2210]

I believe Due Process is one of the freedoms our government is working fervently to abolish, so I say turnabout is fair play.

The government grants due process to the citizens, it doesn't flow the other way.

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe there are is a good amount of people here who believe that these DDOS attacks are nonsense. It could even be a silent majority. But the kiddies are making all the news. Oh no.. I hope they don't DDOS my site for saying this. I post anonymously as I actually fear these kids. I guess the cyberterrorists have won.

Re:Mob Justice

[shawn(at)fsu]

I'm sure the members of Anonymous feel terrible and are busy crafting an apology. You're right of course, this has mob mentality written all over it.

Re:Mob Justice

[alonsoac]

the only change that can come from these DDOS attacks is more investment in network security (more costs which could end up driving consumer prices up) and more severe cybercrime laws. I don't see how anyone can benefit from this.
And shutting down sites because you dont agree with what the owner says or does goes against free speech as people will keep quiet just to avoid being attacked.

Re:Mob Justice

[Steeltoe]

But this isn't free speech anymore, it's just mob justice and there's no due process in mob justice.

Following that logic, USA would never have become independent. Protests against the Vietnam war would never change official policy. Public outrage should only be met with cudgels and swords (guns and bombs in modern times). If the public doesn't matter, we might as well live under a dictatorship, at least that way, we're honest about it.

However, I agree, violence should be last resort. People should find peaceful means to perform due civil disobedience, if that doesn't work, bring on the flamethrowers!

Re:Mob Justice

[AltairDusk]

That includes the mainstream media, who seemed to borrow the story from Twitter without bothering to fact check.

This seems to happen disturbingly often actually.

Re:Mob Justice

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

the only change that can come from these DDOS attacks is more investment in network security (more costs which could end up driving consumer prices up) and more severe cybercrime laws. I don't see how anyone can benefit from this.

Well, I can benefit from that since I own stock in a company that makes DDoS mitigation appliances. But aside from that, this brings press and attention to the issue, and usually that's what is important in situations like this. If people don't know Visa is cutting of Wikileaks donations, but are continuing payments to the KKK, well maybe more press will help illuminate why they're doing this and cause customers to demand change either from the companies, or from government regulation regarding common carriers (which these companies usually aren't but legally should be).

And shutting down sites because you dont agree with what the owner says or does goes against free speech as people will keep quiet just to avoid being attacked.

Either way free speech is affected. The real question is if we want protesters temporarily silencing companies or if we want companies permanently silencing individuals and civil rights groups.

Re:Mob Justice

[WED Fan]

Neither is there due process in fascism.

You probably don't understand that word.

Re:Mob Justice

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Boycotts are legal [wikipedia.org]. As are some sit in's and most protests.

You'd think my mention of "blacks being arrested" would clue you in to the fact that no, the Rosa Parks sit ins were not considered legal by the powers that be. Heck, at the time they made it illegal for cab drivers to charge low fares and devoted significant police action to fining and detaining those cab drivers. Are you seriously trying to imply that illegal civili disobedience has not brought about significant positive change in the US?

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither is there due process in fascism.

Well, there's most likely no gold on the moon, either. Does this have any relevance to the argument at hand, or are you trying to count hyperbolic extrapolation, strawmanning, and a textbook definition of the slippery slope fallacy as valid arguments because you can cram all three into just seven words?

Re:Mob Justice

[flyingsquid]

I do recognize this as a free speech/civil rights issue and if people feel strongly enough to risk their freedom via civil disobedience movements like this, I can respect that. To dismiss it as "undemocratic" or "mob justice" is to ignore very important lessons from our not so distant history. It's sort of a stretch to put a bunch of immature, anonymous online vandals in the same class as Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus. Her actions had a dignity to them because she stood up for herself without harming anyone else, and because she was willing to be arrested for her actions. But these attacks are a deliberate attempt to cause harm, and the attackers aren't willing to stand up and be accountable for their actions. If people want to stand up for Wikileaks, fine, that's their right, but committing anonymous vandalism makes you like a teenager spraypainting an anarchy sign on the side of a building in the middle of the night, not the moral equivalent of a civil rights crusader.

Re:Mob Justice

[CaffeinatedPenguin]

Where is the due process for Wikileaks? Wikileaks isn't alone in this - there are major news organizations that are helping them redact the data. The US is strong-arming everyone they can to shut down Wikileaks. We don't hear about the news organizations getting in trouble. Shutting down Wikileaks sets a dire precedent. Should that occur, you can expect no more news of government wrongdoing like the Pentagon Papers. Where's the line were the government can stop stories it does not like?

The US should have a trial for Wikileaks before taking action. So far, they've been embarrassed, but I haven't heard of actual damage being done.

Re:Mob Justice

[Schadrach]

...which explains why Anonymous generally acts like an unrestrained id being told it's toys were taken away by THAT GUY, or that THAT GUY will scream funny if you hit him. Anonymous not being a "group" so much as a loosely and temporarily affiliated swarm of ever changing internet mobsters and all.

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no due process in mob justice.

There's no justice without due process.

What goes around comes around.

That's when mobs get run over by tanks.

Re:Mob Justice

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's sort of a stretch to put a bunch of immature, anonymous online vandals in the same class as Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus.

Yes it is. Why then are you mangling my analogy with this strawman argument? I compared the people arrested in the sit-in boycotts to the people executing the DDoS attacks. So really you're talking Rosa Parks would be Assange and the Anonymous group would be Martin Luther King Jr. and company. He was sentenced to a year in prison (he served 2 weeks) for "hindering a bus" and he was. He was blocking access and intentionally disrupting service inconveniencing those people who still wanted to do business with the bus system.

But these attacks are a deliberate attempt to cause harm, and the attackers aren't willing to stand up and be accountable for their actions.

But many of the protestors in the Rosa Parks incident refused to identified and refused to identify others present because they feared the repercussions from an oppressive government and rightly so since several were attacked and killed. Since some of the Wikileaks documents talk about the US attacking and torturing or having tortured people to further their cause, I'd say anonymity is understandable. Heck, the original tea party was composed of people in native american disguises.

If people want to stand up for Wikileaks, fine, that's their right, but committing anonymous vandalism makes you like a teenager spraypainting an anarchy sign on the side of a building in the middle of the night, not the moral equivalent of a civil rights crusader.

While you may not appreciate their efforts (and I'm not particularly keen on them either), it is a clear parallel to other civil rights movements and civil disobedience campaigns. And plenty of people thought "those uppity niggers should shut up and stop hurting america and get out of the way when white people want to sit down" or some such. Just because you or even the majority doesn't appreciate the method or cause does not make it any less valid. I'm not arguing Anonymous or Wikileaks side here, just trying to point out the fallacy of dismissing the issue as "mob rule" or invalid because the actions are illegal.

Re:Mob Justice

[realityimpaired]

They're being juvenile, and the press is doing a pretty good job of getting that point across. The people behind the DDoS of these websites aren't winning any allies, and they certainly aren't winning any friends for Wikileaks by their actions. Rather, they're only succeeding in polarizing the people more than they already have been... those who support the site have done so from the beginning, those who are against it have done so from the beginning, and the undecided are looking at this juvenile behaviour and deciding that if those are the kinds of people who support Wikileaks, then they don't want to be counted with them.

It's not going to cause any real damage, except that it could lead to criminal charges for a few idiots, and it will turn away potential allies in a time when the site needs real allies, not script kiddies running some stupid DDoS on people they don't like.

Re:Mob Justice

[operagost]

In response to the mistreatment of black people-- like that experienced by Rosa Parks-- the Women's Political Council announced a boycott of the buses. That means they weren't using them-- not blocking people from using them. This was effective because most of the bus riders were black, so the buses lost money. It's also hard to argue that they were "DDOSing" a bus by refusing to give up a seat in the first place. A full bus is full whether the riders are black or white.

Verbal protest is acceptable. All speech, especially unpopular speech, is to be protected. No one has the right to not be offended. However, everyone also has the right to move about freely. DDOSing these web sites is vigilantism the same way that blocking innocent people from getting to work or school would be.

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the fundamental principle of democracy is that a large group of people is collectively smart enough to choose their own government.

Re:Mob Justice

[sumdumass]

The US hasn't taken action against Wikileaks. As far as I (we) know, these companies acted in their own interests of not being wrapped up in legal charges that are likely to happen against Wikileaks.

If you own a business and that business knowingly offers services or products to aid the commission of a crime, in the US, that business and anyone making the decisions to continue doing that business is facing charges themselves.

When you have this much publicity surrounding an entity that has done an act that many are claiming to be illegal, it's obvious that US businesses want to sever liability associated with doing business with them to avoid prosecutions- both civil and criminally.

You are right, due process should happen. But I can't fault someone or some entity for not wanting to get sucked into someone else' legal battles. This isn't the US taking from wikileaks, it's companies attempting to limit potential liability under US law that has existed long before wikileaks was a wet dream in it's founder's loins.

Re:Mob Justice

[Spottywot]

I completely agree that people, which ever 'mob' they belong to have a right to protest, and even when they are denied the legal right to protest have a responsiblity to protest. However with a large proportion of the public not knowing which side to believe, then how you make your point is quite important.

Consider how the media is reporting the DDOS atacks on VISA and Paypal, as Cyber Attacks by 'Hackers' and cyber warfare. Great sensationalism for the media, but is it going to do the cause of Wikileaks, of freedom of speech any good? As far as the avarage joe is concerned the attacks are being made by allies of Wikileaks, not by some self appointed revenge mob.

I'm not saying do nothing by any stretch of the imagination, simply consider the effect of what you do and why.

Re:Mob Justice

[Beerdood]

"The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters." - Terry Pratchett

"Ah, there's no Justice like angry mob justice" - Principle Skinner, member of Mensa

Re:Mob Justice

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

the Women's Political Council announced a boycott of the buses. That means they weren't using them-- not blocking people from using them.

You should do more thorough research. In addition to the boycott there were illegal sit ins that blocked others from using them and cabbies illegally undercharging for rides. Both were against the law at the time and prevented other people from getting where they needed to go.

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of oppressed black people in the southern US during the 60's protesting racial discrimination != fucking b-tards slamming the wrong DNS site so they can feel like they're part of a shadowy outfit with a cool name.

This is not civil disobedience, it's troublemaking retardation that's hard to police.

Re:Mob Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they boycott by 'not riding' the buses.

Why not boycott these places by not visiting, maybe if the bus boycott was people pushing white people out of the way to get on the bus only than you might have a point.

Im confused....

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Sure, you'll alway lose, and so will the people who have names similar to you, and people that happen to share the same subnets, and people who get in the way... and people who...

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

I suggest you look up the definition of the word "violence". You might be surprised.

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Boycots and sit-ins are not illegal. Some people involved in those activities go above and beyond the boycott or sit-in, and those actions can be illegal. Those are usually the ones that get the most press. Don't confuse those actions with the actual, legal boycott or sit-in.

As a comparison, it's legal to picket an abortion office. It's not legal to shoot the staff as they walk out the door, even if you're holding a picket sign.

Whether or not the local government "considers" something to be illegal or not is irrelevant. You can be arrested for doing nothing. Being arrested doesn't mean you've broken the law.

Were any of those people involved in the boycott or sit-in arrested and convicted of a crime? Or just the people who did the stupid shit?

Re:Mob Justice

[Optali]

I'm happy to read that there are in fact a lot od Slashdotters who still keep a bit of critical edge. I feel ashamed about this stupid mass-media 'Wikileech' circus. Specially after seeing how the low-life cheers thinking that they are in the middle of a Revolution... but the worst is that many that I held for intelligent joined the circus too.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

Why do you say that?
it's not surprising in the least:

violence [valns]
n
1. the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc.
2. powerful, untamed, or devastating force the violence of the sea
3. great strength of feeling, as in language, etc.; fervour

I suppose you could say these guys are expressing a great strength of feeling if you wanted to twist it horribly.

Violence is all about the physical force.
And a DDoS does no physical harm to any human or property.
It merely ties up some network resources for a while.
It's utterly non-violent in nature.

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Try here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence

1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

Only one of those definitions mentions anything about physical force. And #3 is quite appropriate.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

not really no.

"an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence"

they're not taking over any government by force.
They're not excerting any kind of force in any way.
they have little or no power.

So no.
you're talking bullshit

bullshit (blsht) Vulgar Slang
n.
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Seriously? You don't think turning 10's of thousands of botnet pc's against someone they don't like to be exerting force or power?

You're just being deliberately stupid if that's what you are trying to say.

And the part about government is an example of the usage, not that it has to be government related. And you don't think the attacks against the DMCA isn't an attack against laws?

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

attacks against the DMCA?
what are you babbling about now?

last I heard anonymous had hundreds nodes, not tens of thouands.

If you want to call that "violent" then there is no such thing as non violent protest of any kind.

Walking down a street with signs? well you're blocking traffic and using your force of numbers to disrupt local buisnesses.
Standing in front of a buisness with signs? well you're using the power of intimidation and peer pressure to stop people friom going inside.
Sitting down in front of a buisness or chaining yourself to a railing? pah! violent! so so violent! on a par with just shooting people really!

And don't get me started on that violent asshole ghandi!

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Did you read the recently posted article? Criminal botnets are being used as part of Operation Payback?

And a few hundred nodes would not be enough to kick Visa off the net, there are ceratinly more than that going on.

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

By the way, what part of "attack" in DDoS Attack isn't an expression of force? Gahndi just decided not to eat. He didn't force others to starve.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

right.
so your argument has degenerated into "it has the word 'attack' in it's name"

because it's so violent to make an "attack" on someones character.
Or to attack a position in a debate.
The homophobes like to talk about how gay marriage is an "attack" on their values.
yet none of these things are violent.

just because something has the word "attack" in its name or terms associated with it does not make it violent.

This is people sitting at home sending a flood of messeges to a machine so it has trouble responding to other people for a little while.

No people are hurt in any way, no property is damaged.
A few people are invonveninced for a few hours.

it's about as non violent as non-violent gets.

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Any form of attack is a form of agression.

Basically, you're arguing that unless physical harm occurs, it's not violence. Abuse comes in all kinds of forms, including verbal and psychological abuse, all of which are considered forms of violence.

Let's face it, it's one of those terms that doesn't have a simple, single meaning. It's used in all kinds of ways throughout history.

Agression of any form is not "as non-violent as non-violent gets", and people like Gahndi would very much disagree with you.

You want to define things to justify your view of how Anonymous works. You may think nobody "got hurt", but you have no way of knowing that. Lots of services that can affect life and death occur over the internet, and even slowing some of them because a congested router is too busy fighting off attack can result in disasterous consequences.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

Right so now violece is anything agressive under any warped definition of agressive too.

Violence is inherently physical, non-violent protest is protest where nobody is injured or killed and no property is damaged.

you're flailing around revising again and again weakly trying to avoid admiting that calling spamming messeges to a computer "violent" is utter and complete bullshit.

"but you have no way of knowing that"

sure,perhaps the blinking of the server lights caused one of the admins to have an epileptic fit and fall over hitting his head.
I also have no way of knowing that there isn't a teapot orbiting neptune and have no way of proving that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
but given the abusdity of the claim the burden of proof lies on you to show that anyone did get hurt.

"and even slowing some of them because a congested router is too busy fighting off attack can result in disasterous consequences."

Right, so anyone using excess network resources is a murderer now because you can't prove otherwise.
remember kids: if you download from netflix you may be killing someone!!!!

And don't even get me started on those bastards who organise protest letter writing campaigns!
How many people die each year because the postal service was too overwhelmed by millions of letters being sent to peoples congressmen and important letters from doctors don't get through!
There's no way to decide so lets assume millions die because of this!
those violent letter writing bastards!
And it's an attack too!
tying up government office resources dealing with the millions of letters!
So it's even more violent!
The electric chairs too good for them!

Spamming messeges to a computer is not violent in any way, it's disruptive but it's utterly non-violent.

Re:Mob Justice

[DeVilla]

Two's late, I'm reading both. Most of the high moderated posts on the prior article now seem to be equating the DDOS to protesting brick & mortar stores. I guess that means EasyDNS got what they deserved?

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Oh, please. Your examples are utterly ridiculous. I'll give you a concrete example of how this can affect human life.

Consider the case of VOIP, and Emergency 911 use. If a router gets knocked offline, or drops a large number of packets, someone may be incapable of dialing 911 if they are have an emergency.

If you think this is so far out of the realm of possibility, then you're being highly retarded.

This falls under the category of yelling fire in a crowded theater. If someone gets trampled and killed by your practical joke, you're guilty of at least manslaughter.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

you're flailing madly for the most remote possibilities.
Hell if emergency services traffic is going over a route which can be blocked by network congestion you're already doing something very wrong.

to give a simple parallel: peaceful protesters walking down the street with signs could delay and ambulance from getting through.
If one street gets partly blocked or a large number of people get in the way someone may be unable to get to hospital on time.
A letter writing campaign could lead to important letters getting lost in the mail or delayed.
A letter about blood test results etc might not get through.

Neither of those remote possibilities makes either of those forms of protest violent.

You're argument is absurd.
This isn't shouting fire in a crowded cinema, it's shouting nonsens in a crowded cinema: it annoys people but it's still peaceful.

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

Peaceful protesters can (and morally should) get out of the way when they see (or hear) an ambulance coming. DDoS zombies can't do that.

Anything that uses the normal mail system, or any mail system at all can't be deemed an emergency.

And yes, lots of people have internet based phone systems, either via their cable provider, or vonage or other VOIP providers. Millions of people. And yes, they have 911 service via those phones.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

your netflix download doesn't get out of the way any more than the traffic from a DDoS, so remember kids, every time you watch a TV show online you're being VIOLENT!
Should just lock up every bandwidth hog, they deserve worse!

And protesters on the street may get out of the way but they still delay things in an emergency.
So sorry, still just as "violent".

And you're still failing to justify your absurd position.

Re:Mob Justice

[man_of_mr_e]

No, the absurd position is yours.

The difference is intent. Anonymous *INTENDS* to disrupt the flow of internet traffic. If you accidentally do so because you're downloading a movie, that's entirely different. That's a failure of the network to handle normal traffic.

A DDoS attack intentionally targets routers and other devices to take them down in a manner that is above and beyond normal traffic conditions.

If you can't understand that intent is the difference between a crime and an accident, then you've got some serious problems with your moral compass.

Re:Mob Justice

[HungryHobo]

And the point of a protest is to make noise, get noticed and generally disrupt the local area and traffic.
They intend to disrupt things. they intend to pack the street with more people than are on it normally.
If protesters delay an ambulance they may not intend to kill anyone yet they still might unintentionally.
That doesn't make the protest a violent one even in such an unlikely situation.

If they disrupt a voip call(assuming the local network admins are retards who don't prioritizee voip traffic) they didn't intend to any more than the protesters intended to slow the ambulance.
It comes about as a side effect of the general disruption they very intentionally caused.
That doesn't make the protest a violent one even in such an unlikely situation.

If you can't understand the difference between violent and non violent protest then you've got some serious problems with your moral compass and a lack of common sense.

But the newspaper said so!

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Not everything we read in the papers is true? Unheard of!

I wonder...

[girlintrainingpants]

Will this boost their business, or will it hurt it? I wonder what will show up as the top hundred results in a few weeks...

EasyDNS Plugged WikiLeaks
or
EasyDNS falsely accused of unplugging WikiLeaks

Only time can tell, but I would guess the latter. Kind of like when my local paper misprints something and they apologize in a short posting in an unread section between two huge car ads...

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably gonna hurt it. Good question to raise tho

Re:I wonder...

[quangdog]

Isn't the old saying: "Any publicity is good publicity?". The fact that they are the subject of any articles will help push them up to the top of the heap of google search results.

Re:I wonder...

[hedwards]

I suspect that it will help a lot. The people that liked them pulling the plug are typically too stupid to notice that it was retracted. And the people that disliked it are usually up enough on it that they notice the retraction.

Consequently, I suspect that this is probably going to be more upside than downside for them.

Re:I wonder...

[Skidborg]

Well, how many people had even hear of EasyDNS before they were accused? How many know they exist now?

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the old saying: "Any publicity is good publicity?". The fact that they are the subject of any articles will help push them up to the top of the heap of google search results.

This is in fact good publicity. First, they get their name cleared. Second, they're not being "douchebags" about the whole situation. Third, they work with Wikileaks to provide services after other companies withdrew their support. Fourth, they inform all their customers with a well-written, fact-laden e-mail.

The cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, taco. Way to flush any journalistic integrity you may have had left right down the toilet.

Re:The cause?

[capnkr]

FYI, FWIW: note that the actual submission is from 'kdawson', not CmdrTaco.

Taco posted it. I guess he could have edited that part in, but I think that text is probably from the 'kdawson' submission...

Re:The cause?

[Anonymous Coward]

The quote ends and the last part is Taco's commentary. Why Taco (and seemingly the majority of the slashdot community) support(s) wikileaks is another question entirely. These people are breaking international laws on so many levels, putting innocent lives in danger (and have likely already caused deaths), and there is no way to justify it.

Re:The cause?

[Tanktalus]

The problem is that what wikileaks does is not illegal in almost any country that values freedom of the press. Especially not in the US.

What they're uncovering is often the illegal behaviour of governments which are justifying actions based on popular support (which there was right after 9/11), and then not doing those actions, but something worse. Don't shoot the messenger. This is why the US enshrined freedom of the press in their constitution in the first place.

Re:The cause?

[AltairDusk]

Do you really think if Wikileaks was able to get hold of this information to release publicly that our enemies who we don't want to have the information couldn't? This has exposed a large security breach for the government, one which we have no way of knowing how many times it was exploited (and by whom) before it had been publicized. Anyone taking security seriously should already assume that our enemies had all of the information that Wikileaks got by this point and act accordingly.

If we assume our enemies already have the info that the government doesn't want Wikileaks releasing who is left that they want to hide it from? The people. This leads to the question, why should our government need to hide from its citizens? If we cannot know what our government is doing then how can we know they are serving our best interest?

I don't necessarily support what's going on but neither am I dead set against it. There are compelling arguments on both sides here and a blanket position for one simply doesn't make sense.

Re:The cause?

[Skidborg]

Government e-mail is not copyrighted.

Re:The cause?

[sumdumass]

IT doesn't matter because the point he was making is that even with a free press there are still restrictions on what can be released by the press.

Saying that Government e-mail is not copyrighted says nothing about the restrictions in the first place and only ignores that they are there and capable of being in place.

Re:The cause?

[Skidborg]

What restrictions, specifically? Can you quote me the law that presides over this case?

Re:The cause?

[sumdumass]

Restrictions over copying and distributed copyrighted materials or knowingly giving the enemy information about bases, equipment, troop strength, operations, personnel and so on as define in the espionage act.

the point is that there are limits to the freedom of the press and the press cannot just do anything it wants in some regards.

Re:The cause?

[Skidborg]

No, I mean the specific laws. You can't just point in the vague direction of a foreign document and say it might have something in it about the case. You can't be for locking a man up without first being absolutely sure which laws he has broken.

Re:The cause?

[sumdumass]

You can't be for locking a man up without first being absolutely sure which laws he has broken.

Yes I can. That's what prosecutors and investigating LEOs are for. To lock people suspected of committing crimes up while awaiting trial. Society has been on board with this idea for quite some time too.

No, I mean the specific laws. You can't just point in the vague direction of a foreign document and say it might have something in it about the case.

This leaked document provided by wikileaks violates the Espionage act carrying a severe penalty. All of the documents that are marked secrete continue to violate the espionage act and simply possessing them can carry 10 years in prison.

I haven't read all the documents released, I don't care to. But from reports, I can reasonably see a couple specific statutes that a violation occurred on. There are probably more depending on the contents of the information in possession or the effects of the releases. It was not my intention to specifically accuse wikileaks of anything nor was it my intention to argue the merits of it. It was my intention to state that there are limits to what can be published in the name of journalism and there can be serious repercussions if you cross those limits.

Gawker is partially at fault

[atomicthumbs]

and they're being assholes about it/a?

Re:Gawker is partially at fault

[Coldegg]

Each media outlet is still responsible for the content they push out... regardless of whether or not somebody randomly says something they should check up on it. Which, means that /. is partially responsible as well. Ofc, one can hardly call this unbiased media.

Re:Gawker is partially at fault

[Mashiki]

What you're surprised at this? These are the same people who run second and third hand information as if it's factual.

Guess that explains that

[TraumaHound]

That should solve the mystery of why Wikileaks "went back" to EasyDNS for hosting. Shame that people didn't dig a little deeper when that seemed weird.

Are you confused?

[spun]

Taco has never claimed to be a journalist. Slashdot has never claimed to be impartial. It's still basically Taco's blog, if you want journalism, try AP, or Reuters, or something like that.

"Stand up for the cause"?

[daveschroeder]

What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

Assange has already said he considers himself a "media insurgent", and that if forced to choose between "journalist" and activist/advocate, he would choose the latter. His response to a Washington Post reporter's query he apparently felt wasn't deserving of his attention was, "I'm too busy ending two wars."

He's an egomaniac, and the fact that Wikileaks is "going to publish classified information anyway" is used as a justification by mainstream media outlets to go ahead with the publication, under the guise of the public's "right to know". Well, since Wikileaks would likely publish any and all classified information it could get its hands on, my interpretation of the media's justification is that they feel they, not the government that works on behalf of the people, are the arbiters of what does and doesn't constitute properly-classified national security information.

That's exactly where this is leading, and what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies. Steven Aftergood, a guy who is a veteran crusader against excessive government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, said, "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals." Indeed.

THIS is restricting press freedoms.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

There was no "illegally-released classified information". It was/is not illegal for the information to be released by wikileaks or the many other large news networks in the US that have published it. The Supreme Court says so, see "Pentagon Papers". So STOP saying that!

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose individual rights has Wikileaks not honored?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks have not broken any laws.

Nice try though.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[entotre]

Such pragmatic, sensible thinking is not in fashion at the moment.
I throw wikileaks into the same box as the tea-party movement. The anti-establishment craze will not last forever, though.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[radio4fan]

"WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."

/tea-spit

Wikileaks expose corruption, torture, war crimes etc, but it's *wikileaks* who don't respect the rule of law or honor the rights of individuals?

Consider my gast flabbered.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone please flag this troll? I mean seriously, it even links a pay-walled NY times article...

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Sockatume]

[the press], not the government that works on behalf of the people, are the arbiters of what does and doesn't constitute properly-classified national security information.

They are not the only arbiters, but they do have a say, and they represent the people as much as the government does, if not more so. That the public has a say in what secrets its government keeps is an necessity for any functioning democracy. Wikileaks' actions are borderline anarchic and ill-reasoned, but the hunger with which the information has been reviewed suggests that the people want to know more than they have been allowed to.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[houghi]

if forced to choose between "journalist" and activist/advocate, he would choose the latter.

I would do the same. Not because of the great ideals of the latter, but the lack of them in the former.
Sure there are some investigative journalists around, but most are at most editors of news feeds. And by editing I mean changing the order of the words a bit, not even the editing that Wikileaks does.

And I do not care what Assange is. He could be a terrorist child molester for all I care.

It might very well be that the law is not respected, but then you must also look if the law is good. Unfortunately going the legal way to change the law also does not work anymore.

Remember that the USofA was not made because everybody was following the law. (Nor any other country)

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[shma]

Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

Your poor wording aside, it is not illegal to publish classified documents as decided by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co v United States. Leaking classified documents is only a crime for government employees.

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

Other than your claim that Assange obtained the documents illegally, which I just showed to be a complete lie, that description applies equally well to Rupert Murdoch, but I don't see you calling for his arrest.

not the government that works on behalf of the people

If you had bothered to read even a fraction of what Wikileaks put out you wouldn't be so ignorant as to make the claim that the US government works "on behalf of the people".

It results in an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.

Did it even occur to you that you just spent your entire post attacking someone who has done nothing illegal and arguing that the media should shut up and only publish whatever information the government decides they should? Sounds like you would enjoy living in a closed and repressive society to me.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because "the cause" is to stroke Assflange's ego and actually ends up bolstering support for those who would want to lock down the internet. Good job morons!

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[crush]

what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.

Here here! Obviously the proper response is to stop being an open society and keep hiding information from the people in this, our God-given democracy, until such time as the baby-eating fascists from Oceania are driven back to their watery realm. Do you have a news letter to which we may subscribe?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy abounds.

The cases of Xiaobo and Assange are remarkably similar. There's only two differences: China is much better at censorship (give the west time) and in the case of Xiaobo, you chose not to believe China's claims that he is an enemy of the state.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Tridus]

Oh, well since the US Government did all that stuff, it was done for freedom. Why do you hate America?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Jeian]

Well, since Wikileaks would likely publish any and all classified information it could get its hands on

Which they're not even consistent about, since apparently they'd rather hold back certain files to try and blackmail the US government rather than follow through on "the public's right to know."

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

I think people can see this just fine. I can see it, anyway, and I applaud it.

Assange may be an unsavory guy, but that's all rather beside the point. The point is that he exposed government corruption and illegal activity that we would not have seen otherwise. He did so in a way that hurts the corrupt (asis obvious from the copious squealing they're doing) but was otherwise cautious and thought out. He did not break an laws while doing so. The one guy who did break the law -- the one who disclosed classified info -- is under arrest and awaiting courts-martial.

The anti-Wikileaks crowd keeps slamming Assange, which is laughabl misguided. Why not slam the real culprits? Those engaging in corrupt behavior, or even if there were none of those, then the pitiful security this data was "guarded" by.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Coldegg]

lol - We have millions of people that act against the government more than Xiaobo has in China. You made me laugh so hard... these aren't even comparisons. If Xiaobo had released hundreds of thousands of Chinese documents, they would have cut every appendage off his body and fed it to the dogs. And then gone to work on really hurting him. Is this really the level of dillusion on /.?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[tomthepom]

Wow, almost don't know where to start with all this meaningless character assassination, righteous pontification and vague generalization here. But one statement really caught my eye;

That's exactly where this is leading, and what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.

This is almost exactly the opposite of reality - open and democratic societies have an advantage exactly because there is more information available - even the stuff the government doesn't want you to know about.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this: They don't respect iraqi interpreters right to live.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stream of illegally-released classified information... that's what you said. Except, not one word of that is actually FACT (yet). Now yes, I realize it will probably become known as fact in the fairly near future. However, today, the only word in there that is correct is "information". The rest is hyperbole. It's GOOD hyperbole. It's believable and most people probably just took it at face value. Bravo.
 
I'm just going to skip over the democratic part... ok no... I'm going to ask, 'how do you know it's democratic?". Faith in your leaders? Because you sure as hell don't have any facts, especially when people like you get through with groups like wikileaks.
 
I don't care if Assange is mentally deranged. It's UTTERLY beside the point. Assange is not wikileaks and wikileaks is not Assange. The fact we are even focusing on him personally is a testament to exactly how well this entire smear campaign is going. Once 'they' make this about people, flawed people, they can sweep it all up and tie it off. Meanwhile everyone just kind of ignores the mounting evidence of malfeasances on the part of our government. We all KNOW the government isn't acting properly, and we have all now seen PROOF, and yet we are arguing about some douche bag with an ego problem? This is some kind of Orwellian nightmare isn't it? Please, WAKE THE HELL UP.
 
This whole thing isn't about Assange, it isn't about secrets and who should or shouldn't keep them, it isn't about wars, or psuedo wars. It isn't about the CIA botching up a publicity stunt. It isn't about ANON taking aim at big bad corporations. THIS IS ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT BREAKING THE LAW. Lying to the public. Cheating, stealing, acting without honor. These kinds of things used to get you hung. Now apparently they get a new term in office. Assange is right about one thing. The US government and the people that support it are fucked up.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know about corruption torture war crimes etc. Shouting that the other guy is corrupt does not mean you're a sane or clear headed or lawful or right.

What wikileaks has done with these state dept cable releases is hand a massive advantage to any country that plays against the US and it's allies. If you're say for instance a strategic policy wonk working for China, this is a tresure trove of insider thinking, positions, and strategies which will be taken advantage of.

If you think the US/UK/etc version of democracy is imperfect, which is massively is, wait till the alternate waves of human government catch up with you. The little anarchist fantasy you're currently enjoying will not be possible, other that between your ears.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[daveschroeder]

Nowhere did I say that Assange obtained the documents illegally. They were illegally obtained and released by the leaker (presumed to be PFC Manning).

Should open, democratic societies not be able to maintain information that is secret for purposes of conducting diplomacy and providing for a national defense?

If any secrets are acceptable, then who gets to decide what is secret? The press? A troubled young soldier who believes he can leak without getting caught (and only did because he bragged)? A foreign national who openly admits he is trying to impact US policy? I mean, do you really think that's okay: the subversion of lawful processes in a democratic nation?

Or should that perhaps only be reserved for nations like China, who today are busy censoring any media outlet that is referring to one of their citizens having won a Nobel prize?

Is China going to be a better global steward than the United States, given that nations like Ecuador in one breath offer Julian Assange safe harbor (nothing more than a shrewd political move, no doubt, but still), while simultaneously not renewing the US lease on its Manta air base and instead giving it to China?

I mean, do you really not see a problem with this?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[jmac_the_man]

The release TO Wikileaks is what was illegal. Since Assange isn't a journalist and wikileaks isn't a media organization, they may or may not have committed illegal acts (soliciting people to commit espionage) as well. But for Manning (or theoretically someone else, I guess) to give them the documents in the first place was "an illegal release of classified information."

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, sound like one of the crybaby government dolts that got there feelings hurt because you got caught.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[MacGyver2210]

It wasn't illegally released. There was no crime committed by releasing that data. Assange and his company didn't steal the information, so they are not liable on that front. They didn't receive any valid court order or legal reason not to publish it.

The fact is, he is the only person who was willing to stand up to the government and tell them - deservedly - to go fuck themselves with their dictatorial ideas of international policy and national security. The egg is on their face, and if anyone is guilty of something criminal it would probably be the government.

Our government is doing more damage to our way of life and "freedom" than the "terrorists" ever have. Put them in their place.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cause is government transparency, which is something Obama loudly proclaimed that he would implement if he were to be made president.

Government transparency is a common-sense requirement for a useful democracy, because without it nobody can verify if they voted for someone who followed through on their promises. This is especially important for second-term presidential elections, but also applies to every elected government position.

The fact that you can't identify the cause at stake, even after both, Wikileaks and the elected president of the country that produced the documents that Wikileaks is revealing, specifically came out in support of government transparency, is a shame.

Furthermore, it's annoying that these documents are claimed to be illegal. They are not. It doesn't even make sense to call pieces of information "illegal". Actions are illegal, and in this case, it was illegal for a member of the US Government to give the documents to Wikileaks. The leaked documents and what Wikileaks is doing with them is not illegal, and I am waiting for someone to sue Amazon, Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, and EveryDNS (not EasyDNS) for libel.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Duradin]

PFC Manning did not have clearance to release the documents, ie he released them illegally.

Released illegally released documents != Illegally released illegally released documents.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Xyrus]

What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

Freedom of speech and the press. Neither Assange nor Wikileaks are US citizens/entities, and they were not the perpetrators of the security breach. The government has no legal ground to stand on, and should be able to do nothing to them. The keyword being should.

It's quite obvious that such inconveniences as previous case law and the Constitution mean little when those in power are threatened. Government pressuring companies to submit to its will is not something you want to see in a supposedly free society. And before you jump into ToS agreements, these companies are more than happy to accept business from other groups that violate their ToS, such as the KKK.

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

Foreign national? Wikileaks is an organization. A press organization actually. One of several releasing this information to the public.

And what did you think these releases were going to do? Of course they're going to influence public opinion and policy. That's the point. When you're government is doing shady things the public should know, like letting people with suitcases full of cash go through checkpoints, illegally ordering diplomats to perform spy operations, supplying little boys for sex, or performing military strikes in a country and lying about it. Such information is critical when it comes time to make decisions about who should be running our country so we don't come off as self-serving hypocritical bastards.

Assange has already said he considers himself a "media insurgent"...

Assange, Assange, Assange. Assange this and Assange that. I could care less about Assange. Assange is not the centerpiece of the discussion, nor is he "Wikileaks". Wikileaks is an organization with many people. Assange is the ego-maniacal shitshield.

my interpretation of the media's justification is that they feel they, not the government that works on behalf of the people, are the arbiters of what does and doesn't constitute properly-classified national security information

The government is NOT working on behalf of the people when it is performing shady operations. But the government HAS and WILL classify that information to ensure that it doesn't come to light. That is NOT democracy. That's the kind of crap you see in China and North Korea. If our government bends and breaks the laws in order to accomplish it's goals then our government is no better than any other tyrannical government that will do anything to further it's own ends. That is NOT the type of government that we, the shining light of democracy and freedom, should have.

That's exactly where this is leading, and what it results in is an environment where closed and repressive societies have an advantage in the information realm over open and democratic societies.

So we should lower ourselves down to their level to ensure we're playing on a level field, is that it? What is this, the land of the free only when it suits us? The land of compromise our morals and standards for political gain? We always claim we are better than that, but perhaps we aren't. I guess hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[nedlohs]

Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy.

Other than your claim that Assange obtained the documents illegally, which I just showed to be a complete lie, that description applies equally well to Rupert Murdoch, but I don't see you calling for his arrest.

Well, except for that little minor detail that Murdoch isn't a foreign national.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Tranzistors]

What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?

Had they released documents from Russia, would it still be wrong thing to do? For all I know, it is democratic.

"WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."

And US honours due process, when they "nudge" private companies to block services to Wikileaks?

Since it is generally accepted in US that free speech is good thing (see Pentagon papers AC pointed out before), burden of proof is on your side. So:

• Why being and activist/advocate is bad?
• Why do you believe his agenda is to be popular and not tu bring out the truth? And why is it relevant at all?
• Why do you believe governments operates in interest of THE PEOPLE? See Pentagon papers AC pointed out above.
• So, what laws Wikileaks don't respect (quotations please) and what rights of individuals they don't honour (agaim, quotes please)

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this will help you get the point: Is Assange more likely to be killed by the Russian or the american intelligence agency? (hint: its the russians)

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this really the level of dillusion on /.?

Yes, it is. This place is fine for technical items, but broken otherwise.

Also, it's delusion.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[PitaBred]

I don't hate America

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[SillyNickName4me]

Hmm, you think, the Chinese gov needs Wikileaks to know about those things?

I think that is slightly naive...

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. PFC Manning should be hauled off to US court and tried. Not Assange; he's not subverting any lawful processes.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[entotre]

If you had bothered to read even a fraction of what Wikileaks put out you wouldn't be so ignorant as to make the claim that the US government works "on behalf of the people"

If you really think you can make that case, why not run for office and change things?
It would beat writing condescending rebuttals.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[PitaBred]

China is not immune, either. The problem is that you're a nationalist, and not a patriot. A patriot would look at these leaks as places to improve America, as information that the voters NEED to know in order to make informed decisions. I sure as shit want to know if they State Department is engaging in political maneuvering at the behest of Visa and Mastercard. That's pretty fucking important in a free, democratic society.

The government does need secrets. But it should not be given ultimate authority of censorship, either. Even if it doesn't like some of the things being leaked. Because the alternative is China, just as you suggest.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Coldegg]

Good call on the delusion. I always appreciate help with my English. ;)

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[JSBiff]

I would add to the above, that people have a legitimate need to keep some secrets, and so do governments. International diplomacy is essential, and the need for intergovernmental 'confidence' is a necessary part of diplomacy.

While I can see leaking things like U.S. government efforts to spy on U.N. officials, other government officials, etc, or leaking information about U.S. government corruption, lies they've made to their citizens, illegal military actions, etc - things which are merely 'embarrassing' to the government - it's another thing to be leaking a lot of private communications between governments. If governments cannot communicate candidly and privately with other government leaders, do you really think that will lead to a *safer*, more *peaceful* world? I don't.

When leaking any information, the first question which must be asked is, "Will leaking this do more harm than good"? I can condone limited leaks when their is obvious corruption, government leaders lieing to the public to cover up illegal actions, etc. I just don't see how doing a mass release of 10 years' or so worth of diplomatic communications comes close to that standard.

The one thing I do have a bit of a problem with is that Assange is not a U.S. citizen, and not subject to U.S. laws when he is not on our soil, and neither is WikiLeaks. However, Assange is a citizen of *some* nation, and subject to its laws. WikiLeaks is hosted in some nation(s) and subject to their laws. I would suppose there is some sort of international treaty covering situations like this, where under most nations laws, it would be illegal to publish illegally obtain, classified information for allies of that nation. I believe Assange is an Australian citizen, so I could see him, if Australia has such a law to protect their allies confidentiality, prosecuting him under their laws.

If there is no such international treaty, perhaps the time has come.

Ss for whoever leaked the documents, who was a trusted member of the U.S. government, if the Private who is alleged to have leaked the documents really did, and is justly convicted, he should absolutely be executed for treason - if he did do this, he's made the world a less safe place, and violated the oaths and laws of his position.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaah, Dave... even as an AC I usually filter your comments--they're intelligent, I just consider your values twisted.

But this part was irresistible:
  >>> I mean, do you really think that's okay: the subversion of lawful processes in a democratic nation?

This point I think...we can find in common.

How can you *NOT* think it is *conditionally* okay to subvert lawful process in a democracy? A democracy (and a democratic republic, and a constitutional republic which is what the US currently classifies itself as)--all depend upon the ability of "the people" to vote. The subversion of lawful process is in fact--necessary, if only to permit the legal system the opportunity to reflect upon things. Furthermore, because of our system of common law/precedent--it is impossible for unjust laws to be overturned (save by vote) without first...breaking them. And having a court rule against you. Not only that, but I have to win locally, lose in the district court, and then win in the supreme court. Sort of. Please forgive the gross simplification for the sake of example--but the real point is--I pretty much have to be prosecuted, lose utterly, and then have the law of the land say "No"--otherwise that victory only really counts at a county/state/district level and not nationally.

Breaking the law is *essential* to the evolution of our judicial process. And thus to our democracy.

As a voter--I cannot vote for politicians based upon information which I do not have. Neither can you.

Until these cables came out, we cannot see the Clinton flat out lied about the means she used to "negotiate" with Germany and Spain in recent years (for example).

I flat out disagree with your assertion about the need for secrecy and national defense... but...let's ignore that issue...

Tell the AC--how am I supposed to uphold my duties as a citizen when the very information I need to make an educated decision is withheld as a matter of law? How am I to avoid voting for politicians who strongarm foreign governments and browbeat their diplomats when they are permitted to lie in public about the tactics used, and are never held accountable? Or if they are--they are held accountable 50 years later when things *might* be declassified. Long past the period where elections make a difference?

So in short--no, I do not think it is okay to subvert democratic processes. But the subversion of lawful processes is part of democracy. A necessary part.

Now, can I gripe at you for presuming that any of our laws (save treaties) even apply to Assange...?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[ToasterMonkey]

Wikileaks expose corruption, torture, war crimes etc, but it's *wikileaks* who don't respect the rule of law or honor the rights of individuals?

Who's judging?

You mutilated your pet's genitalia against its will, you're tax returns are anything but honest, you have thoughts of having sex with your cute coworker and cheating on your significant other, you drive over the speed limit and fail to stop at stop signs. You don't brush your teeth enough and you stink. You lie, you cheat, and deep down inside know you're a hollow shell of a human being.

We can drum up all sorts of really mundane things if we want to. The thing is, I can't judge you because you're an individual I guess, but the government, holly hell we can judge Them, because They are even easier to comprehend than a complex individual such as yourself. Us vs Them think is really intellectually dishonest.

There's a pretty big difference between whistle blowing and what PVT Manning did. There is also a GIGANTIC difference between whistle blowing and the charades Assange pulls off.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

...the subversion of lawful processes in a democratic nation?

The law is no different from a fellow man standing right beside you: It only deserves respect if it earns respect. The law, as it stands in many societies today, sucks. It's that simple. Following a sucky law, even in an attempt to change it, is futile and silly. If the lawful processes of a democratic nation are put together in such a manner as to stifle the reworking of the law through any meaningful practice, be it by imposing ignorance, or some heavy hand of force, then it is flawed. In that case, it is not only okay to subvert it, it is absolutely your duty as a citizen of that society to subvert it.

Do I consider Assange to be some sort of plucky hero of patriotism running about freeing oppressed men from evil societies? Nah. My views on Assange aren't even really that relevant. I do, however, consider it necessary to address the portion of your post that I quoted, because demanding strict adherence to the law without an examination of the justness or utility of the law is just daft and stupid. Besides 90% of us break the law in this country every day when we drive to work in the morning and speed a little bit. What a useless institution the law has become in the States. It's sad really...

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[maxume]

What's wrong with a "coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy."?

Sounds like advertising and lobbying to me. Hell, you could construe voting as a deliberate effort to influence public opinion and U.S. policy (and if two people discuss politics, they might end up coordinating!!!!).

Or is your point more that you think U.S. citizens should be more skeptical about the motivations of a foreigner?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Darinbob]

Wikileaks used to expose corruption tortue, and war crimes. It used to be about "this is stuff the public needs to know!" Now however it has changed with this last batch of tepid disclosures. At most the worst thing they've uncovered is that more things are declared classified than should be. Instead this last batch seems less about whistle blowing than being anti-establishment.

There's a difference between embarrassing people because they've done something unethical or immoral or illegal, and embarrassing people by hoisting their underwear up the flag pole. It's really not in the public's interest to see diplomatic underwear. It might be amusing of course (we all like to read about Khadaffi's entourage) but it is absolutely not part of some grand moral crusade for freedom of speech.

This is like trying to promote free speech by shouting obscenities in a kindergarten; it doesn't help the cause and just encourages governments to clamp down harder.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[LordLucless]

Since Assange isn't a journalist and wikileaks isn't a media organization

-1 Just Wrong

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Korveck]

As of now, the government alone defines what is secret and what is not. It rightly keeps the diplomats' reports of foreign leaders away from public eye. More often than not, deals are better made under the table. These are fine, but at the same time, it covers up the illegal actions (things like kidnapping German citizens, killing Iraqi civilians) for its own convenience.

This is where Wikileaks becomes important. It lets people know what government is doing behind their backs, allowing them to scrutinize it and hold is responsible. And more importantly, it makes government harder to cover up its mess. If there is a bigger chance of being exposed, the government has to think more carefully about the possible consequences.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Jedi Alec]

but the government, holly hell we can judge Them, because They are even easier to comprehend than a complex individual such as yourself. Us vs Them think is really intellectually dishonest.

If we can't judge our own governments, then why the flying fuck are we even bothering with the whole democracy thing? Just because you're happy to have your government work shady deals in the dark doesn't mean the rest of us feel the same way.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not calling for Rupert Murdoch's arrest.

I'm calling for his public crucifixion...

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Jedi Alec]

I would suppose there is some sort of international treaty covering situations like this, where under most nations laws, it would be illegal to publish illegally obtain, classified information for allies of that nation.

Well, yeah, in fact there *is* a treaty which covers this exact subject. To be specific, it is resolution 59(I) of the United Nations. It says a lot of stuff about freedom of expression, freedom of speech, the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and other details rather annoying to governments that seek to wallow in corruption instead of performing the jobs they were hired for. You know, the kind of principles the United States once claimed to be the shining example of.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should open, democratic societies not be able to maintain information that is secret for purposes of conducting diplomacy and providing for a national defense?

Yes, I can see how shooting a bunch of reporters is very important to national security.
If US officials didn't keep secrets out of convenience to themselves as opposed to necessity for the nation, then releasing that information would have been wrong. Withholding information to save face, is equivalent to lying to both their citizens, and the rest of the world. Even if illegal in word, such have been public in the first place.
I'm not going to defend the means by which the data made it to wikileaks, but the responsible parties had it coming for hiding information that may be essential in forming the public opinion on an ongoing war, among other things.

If any secrets are acceptable, then who gets to decide what is secret?

Why, a bunch of people in suits who are not held accountable in any way as far as we know. We should absolutely trust what the government says because the government told us to. bb aproves doubleplus gd

A troubled young soldier who believes he can leak without getting caught (and only did because he bragged)? A foreign national who openly admits he is trying to impact US policy?

[citation needed]

I mean, do you really think that's okay: the subversion of lawful processes in a democratic nation?

Publishing information, even if illegal by itself, does not subvert the law in any way. It may be illegal to say that the king is naked, but that doesn't mean it's not true, or that one wouldn't get beheaded for it.

Or should that perhaps only be reserved for nations like China, who today are busy censoring any media outlet that is referring to one of their citizens having won a Nobel prize?

Wait, what? Did you just start an entirely different comment? I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[sumdumass]

Two wrongs, or any wrong does not make a right.

It is entirely possible to have two bad entities here and to only speak about one of them. The lack of speaking about the other, or even considering the other does not in any way change the one.

If you can't understand that, think of it this way. Suppose there were crimes that happened and you couldn't figure out who actually committed them but the evidence pointed to three or four likely suspects. Now knowing that only one of them could have committed the crime but you can't prove which one, the state locks them all up for the crime. Does locking up the innocent people get excused because the criminal was actually caught? Of course the answer it no, and the state doesn't absolve itself from those wrongs because it turned out that one was right.

In the same sense, just because one entity is breaking the law(s) doesn't mean another entity is absolved from breaking laws in exposing that. Two wrong do not make a right, even if the information released stops one of the wrongs. And neglecting to talk about the other in no way makes the wrong disappear.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't. They aren't. Look no further than the "Collateral Murder" video. Wikileaks edited that with the intent to make you think about it a certain way.
Assange is a source for the media. He's not the media itself. But that's ancillary to the point that the leak (from Manning or whoever leaked it TO Assange) was illegal.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[LordLucless]

So what makes someone part of "the media"? Do they have to pass a certain threshold of political contributions?

Wikileaks is just as much a part of the media as the New York Times.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not naive at all. You think China already had full bore knowledge of everything that is contained in the 250k cables? That's stupid or paranoid.

This is not a video game. It's not all nice and simple. Some good things will come of the theft and release of all of this inside information. Likely a *lot* of really bad things will come of it too; most will never be known to be directly linked to this leak.

Think of how careless it'd be to release this info and the previous info about Afghanistan. You really don't think via these massive data dumps that well intentioned people are not going to be exposed and bumped off because of it? That's naivete.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[SillyNickName4me]

Nice and simple? no not at all.

The Chinese aren't so nice to not try to have spies gather any and all info they are interested in.

Is not so simple that the only way for the Chinese to figure out those things is by means of this leak. Rather, this leak shows how easy it was to obtain this information because of too many people having access to it (if its supposed to stay secret)

I think some people may be exposed, but is that the consequence of the actions of the whistle-blower?

Or would it be the consequence of bad policies that sabotaged transparency, and the response to that?

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Too bad people can't see this for what it is: a foreign national releasing illegally-obtained classified information in a coordinated effort to deliberately try to influence public opinion and US policy."

Yeah, except it's not.

These materials may be US materials, but they're far from harmful to just, or even primarily the US. Cables relating to Saudi Arabia's push for aggression against Iran, whilst the US resists Saudi's push does far more harm to Saudi Arabia's image, and does a lot to dent the viewpoint that the US as a nation is warmongering.

Russia's image is harmed far more by the diplomats analysis of it as a mafia state than the US' image by the release of the cables.

North Korea and Burma are painted as far more isolated by the realisation China is pretty fucking pissed off at them, and these relevant cables don't harm the US.

So get off your fucking patriotic soap box and get a grip. It's not an anti-US attack, as much as you ignorantly seem to think so and as much as the data itself is from US sources. You seem pretty insecure and paranoid about the standing of your nation if you think it's about a "foreign national" trying to specifically damage the US. The only things so far that have been embarassing for the US, are things that are rightly so embarassing because the US is simply in the wrong- you know, like spying on the UN, on UN territory, which is a gross breach of acceptable international standards and law.

But then, as someone who is deeply involved with Intellipedia and studies Information Warfare at AMU (http://das.doit.wisc.edu/) I'm sure you knew all this.

Oh, sorry, was that information disclosure harmful to your attempt at discrediting Wikileaks? Perhaps you should go and work harder at your homework.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Xest]

"lol - We have millions of people that act against the government more than Xiaobo has in China."

No you don't.

The Chinese government has far more dissidents acting against it which it actually tolerates and the sheer size of the population coupled with the severity of their situation means the number acting against the government in China dwarfs those in the US. Recently even some members of Chinese government expressed their desire to improve things even further in this respect.

The only reason they're making a fuss about Xiaobo is because he's a high profile dissident, and it brings international embarassment for them. So, er, exactly like with Assange and the US then really.

What was your point again? It seems like the AC is completely right. It sounds like you were talking about something you don't understand, because the situation in China is very different to what you appear to believe.

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that basically sums him up by the looks:

http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

Re:"Stand up for the cause"?

[shma]

My mistake, I didn't realize Murdoch became a naturalized American citizen. Nevertheless, virtually every foreign newspaper has at some time published editorials trying to influence American policy, and every news organization in the world that is worth a damn has released classified documents at some point.

kdawson

[MikeB0Lton]

What is with the kdawson articles being posted by other editors?

Re:kdawson

[TrisexualPuppy]

I talked to Rob Malda. He told me that they are trying this out as a form of voluntary "peer review." CmdrTaco, care to comment on this?

--TrisexualPuppy

Re:kdawson

[Anonymous Coward]

CmdrTaco is just leaking and publicizing whatever he receives for the benefit of the Slashdot public. You think Bradley Manning gets any credit? NOPE

Re:kdawson

[Anonymous Coward]

With Rob Malda, it's more like "queer review."

Re:kdawson

[apoc.famine]

Too many of us have blocked his articles, so the pageviews were going down. It was either find another way to get them eyeballs, or fire kdawson. And as we know quite well around here, you can't get fired for incompetence...

Innocent until proven guilty

[Toe, The]

Huh. I wonder where this weird idea of "innocent until proven guilty" came from... Hm.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[Toe, The]

Oh yeah. Now that you mention it: everyone who walks into an airport is guilty of being a mass-murderer unless deep tissue scans of their large intestine and intensive manipulation of their genitals can prove that they are conditionally/potentially innocent.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[WED Fan]

Remember, when it comes to mobs, all you need is the whisper that someone is guilty and the mob whips into a frenzy and lynching begins. To the mob, the whisper is proof.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[Dunbal]

I wonder where this weird idea of "innocent until proven guilty" came from...

OK well the next time someone steals your car don't call the police because the "alleged" car thief is really innocent, unless proven guilty. And if you witness a murder don't worry, it's just an innocent citizen going about his business. Unless of course someone proves him guilty.

It's one thing to have a prosecutor stuck with the burden of proof in a court, instead of having the accused try to prove that it "wasn't" him. It's another thing entirely when there's a "smoking gun". If you fail to act on what your own senses are telling you, you are implying that you need a judge to tell you how to think.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[Mister Whirly]

Do you really not understand the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "incapable of ever being guilty"? Assuming someone is innocent until you have actual proof of their guilt is not the same as never thinking anyone is ever guilty of anything. Getting the police to start an investigation into a crime is not asking them to hang the suspect right off the bat.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[mcgrew]

Except that there is no "smoking gun" here. All we have is gossip and rumor.

When your car is stolen, you call the police, they investigate, if they find someone they think did it they assemble evidence and go to trial. If a cop walks in on an armed robbery, he doesn't take the robber to prison, he takes him to a judge.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, when it comes to mobs, all you need is the whisper that someone is guilty and the mob whips into a frenzy and lynching begins. To the mob, the whisper is proof.

In case you haven't noticed, the US Government has also worked that way for some time now.

Look up forfeiture laws.

Or look up how many cops are actually imprisoned for murdering people on a false tip.

Or, my favorite, look up what happens if somebody says you are a child abuser.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[mysidia]

Remember, when it comes to mobs, all you need is the whisper that someone is guilty and the mob whips into a frenzy and lynching begins. To the mob, the whisper is proof.

So what happens when you whisper that the mob itself is guilty of something?

Do they all whip into a frenzy and lynch each other?

What if you have two mobs, and send 'spies' to sneak into each mob and whisper that the other mob "over there" is guilty?

Democratic solution to mob rule

[Toe, The]

You know, there is a way to have group rule without mob rule.

Re:Democratic solution to mob rule

[An ominous Cow art]

There's no way the vegans will be on-board with this "meatgovernment" idea.

Re:Democratic solution to mob rule

[mangu]

TL; DR, just skimmed it. However, I found these two contradictory assertions there:

• "mob rule and demagoguery result from focusing governance on a few hot-button issues"
• "Collaborative governance does not demand that every person participate in every decision. It simply allows people to participate as much or as little as they please in any decision"

If people are able to pick in which decisions they will participate, then most of them will want to participate on a few "hot-button" issues. The result is mob rule and demagoguery.

Re:Democratic solution to mob rule

[Toe, The]

A legitimate point in a limited system. But the object of collaborative governance is to scale from very small systems up to eventually being applied to all democratic decision-making. At that point, the idea of a few hot-button issues won't be evident. There will be millions of them at different scales and in different communities. Your hot button and mine will be free to be different.

More to the point, however, there won't be yes/no options like for a law that does or does not allow immigration into one geographic region. Instead, there will be an array of potential solutions. Large numbers of people might get excited about one issue, but it won't be "us" vs. "them." It will be: "which idea works best for everyone?"

And putting the two above together: there won't be politicians who inherently force issues into yes/no debates. Politicians thrive on dissent, because it gets people excited to love them and hate the other guy. When you take the politicians and the black/white decision-making out of the mix, the propensity for singular hot buttons diminishes enormously.

Re:Democratic solution to mob rule

[konohitowa]

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Re:Democratic solution to mob rule

[totally bogus dude]

I sort of see the theory, but I don't see how it'd really work any different in practice to the current system. Most people won't consider a "whole array" of potential solutions. I don't fully believe that the reason we end up with yes/no debates is due to politicians deliberately causing dissent; but rather that the natural way to go from "a whole array of potential solutions" to "one that we all agree on" is to incrementally combine similar proposals and/or discard fringe proposals until you get to a manageable number of potential solutions.

That process inevitably means that a lot of people end up disenchanted with the process, because their specific concerns are ignored by the majority.

It's not as if current proposals are floated by some politician and then rammed through without any changes. Every significant piece of legislation is the result of a lot of compromises to get something that is acceptable to the majority. That doesn't mean everyone likes it; actually, it pretty much guarantees that nobody really likes it, not even the original proponent, because everybody has had to give something up in order to get it passed.

Also, our hot button issues are already free to be different. There are already many decisions going on at all levels of government which citizens are entitled to (and encouraged to) participate in. Most people don't, because we're lazy (essentially). Instead we choose to get fired up over the same issues because that's what gets reported on. Even if the conflict is purely the result of politically maneuvering, given that collaborative governance allows people to participate as they see fit, there's still motive and opportunity for people to raise awareness of particular issues.

The document says: In all cases, citizens find that they have no voice in almost any social decision. However, the system requires support of citizens, and all politicians are open to receiving the views of their constituents. They have to be in order to survive. The trouble is, most people choose not to participate.

I don't think that Allowing everyone to participate in every decision is likely to fundamentally change the attitudes of members of a community, for the reasons explained above: most people will feel that their specific view is being ignored, and therefore they will feel that participating is not really a valuable use of their time. Just like they feel now. It may make it more transparent as to why their views are not, and cannot, be specifically catered for; but I don't see why that would make them more keen to continue participating.

Re:Democratic solution to mob rule

[Toe, The]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. A lot of your argument flows from this point

Every significant piece of legislation is the result of a lot of compromises to get something that is acceptable to the majority.

and that's just the point... that is only the case for significant legislation. Most decisions do not go through that process because they are not significant to a majority. This applies decisions that are not energizing to a large number of people either because they are boring or because they are small scale.

I don't think that Allowing everyone to participate in every decision is likely to fundamentally change the attitudes of members of a community, for the reasons explained above: most people will feel that their specific view is being ignored, and therefore they will feel that participating is not really a valuable use of their time. Just like they feel now.

How does this follow? There are many times where a person has a fantastic solution to a big issue, but they can't get it to appeal to their representative so they give up. An open system where anyone can contribute has the potential (if constructed well) to allow good ideas to be noticed and brought to more peoples' attention.

Re:Democratic solution to mob rule

[totally bogus dude]

I suspect we'll never come to an agreement, as my point of view is based solely on my own expectations of human behaviour. I think you have different (somewhat more positive) expectations.

The short version is that it's already quite possible to participate in decision making processes for even minor things. Local governments, community groups, school councils, etc: everywhere you look, there's people practically begging for members of the community to get involved. Most people don't, partly because it's perceived as too difficult or time consuming, and partly due to apathy or disinterest.

There are many times where a person has a fantastic solution to a big issue, but they can't get it to appeal to their representative so they give up.

I'd really need to see many examples of such before believing it's true often enough to be significant. Most fantastic solutions are fantastic for a particular person or group of people, but have a negative impact on others. Usually not due to malice, but simply ignorance. Most people simply don't have the time to understand everyone's perspective on an issue. Once you start to factor in the views of everyone that will be affected, the fantastic solution stops seeming so fantastic.

Further, representatives have a vested, personal self-interest in latching onto and introducing fantastic ideas. If someone is able to come up with a fantastic idea but is somehow unable to convince someone who has every reason in the world to take it on board, then it seems unlikely they'd have much more success in an open forum filled with many other proposed solutions. However they also have an interest in not offending groups, which is why they reject solutions that are one-sided. (To a degree: obviously they have no interest in promoting solutions that will improve things for people that would never vote for them.)

Consider any scenario you like, and the more people that are involved in it, and the more diverse the backgrounds of those people are, the harder is for them to come to an agreement. So making it easier to participate is a double-edged sword: it's easier for you to have your say, but there's many more people also having their own say.

Another thing I've noticed is that if you ask people to make a decision on something, they'll be reluctant to even have an opinion on the subject. If you say "I'll make the decision, does anyone have any suggestions?" then everyone will suddenly have an opinion because they won't be responsible if it turns out to be a bad solution. What incentive does someone who has a bee in their bonnet have to come to a reasonable compromise, rather than sticking to their guns and trying to get their exact vision implemented? If they win and it all goes pear-shaped, hey, it's not their fault - everyone else agreed with them! If they get overruled it just proves to them that the system "isn't working" because their brilliant idea wasn't listened to.

So for all those reasons, I don't think the implementation of such a system would really change much. Most people would continue to be apathetic; most of those that do take an 'interest' in an issue will do so because whatever media personality they listen to told them to, and will continue to be poorly-informed on the issues; and those who actively participate and actually care will be just as disenfranchised as they currently are, because the decisions are still going with the majority who are just parroting whatever the talking heads said.

Without a corresponding cultural shift, I don't really see that improving the technology will make a significant difference. Of course, actually implementing such a technological solution would probably require that the society already be undergoing such a shift.

Glad this was posted

[horza]

The whole DNS thing is a red herring. First of all EveryDNS is a free DNS service that survives on donations. They don't have the capacity to survive a cyber attack from the US government. From their page, they have 490m domains that rely on their free service. It's a shame they they didn't hold out and ask for help and donations rather than fold so quickly, but they did have to think about their other users. They aren't the bad guys

Let's assume journalistic incompetence rather than third party malice, but ire is redirected to EasyDNS who are actually one of Wikileaks main supporters. The irony would have been for a Wikileaks .ch provider to be knocked off by its own supporters, but EasyDNS seem to have handled the situation well.

All in all, no harm done. EasyDNS reputation remains intact, Wikileaks remains up.

The same cannot be said for Amazon, Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard.

Phillip.

Re:Glad this was posted

[Mad Leper]

So whatever happened to..

  “It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail - Thomas Jefferson"

So a few innocents get trampled in the rush of mob justice, isn't that what freedom and democracy is all about?

Re:Glad this was posted

[Coldegg]

It's kind of funny... Wikileaks is guilty of the same thing they are pointing a finger at the US for. That, as you stated above, they have jailed one innocent man in pursuit of freedom. By that I mean... through Wikileaks actions, they have caused damage to quite a few different groups. Some of which did not deserve it... and were merely a victim to tjhe Wikileaks cause. Similar as you know, to the US accidentally damaging innocent groups on their push to provide freedom and democracy to the world (which really isn't their place... they need to play a more defensive role and pull back a bit). It makes me laugh a little at the similarity of the two. Both fighting for their cause... both a bit misguided. I have to admit, I'm not a huge fan of Wikileaks, but that is primarily because I'm quite sure they are ebing funded by specific groups that are specifically trying to damage the US. Cryptome had an interesting note on the irregularity of their financing.

Re:Glad this was posted

[hedwards]

You can't hold them responsible for collateral damage. I haven't seen or heard anything from them condoning the DDoS attacks. While one could I suppose view the lack of condemnation a tacit sign of support, it seems rather more likely that they've got their hands busy releasing the cables and getting Assange out of jail.

Re:Glad this was posted

[alonsoac]

i have been using amazon and paypal with no problems.

Re:Glad this was posted

[Coldegg]

They were able to release a statement saying that they neither condemn nore condone the attacks. It would have been even less typing to state "Wikileaks condemns these attacks". Their statement was in fact quite a bit longer than that.

Let's be real though. They want to cause damage with their leaks... they do condone these attacks as it is disrupting the government they are fighting against.

Everyone tries to hold the US responsible for collateral damage... I'm not sure why others are expecting a break from its fallout.

and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

and mob justice

it is why we have courts. it is why we have government

if everyone were their own policeman, judge, jury, and executioner, injustice would increase, not decrease, even with good intent, because of simple miscommunication

which is why increased gun ownership in peacetime civil society is a gateway to more injustice, not a salvation from it, and why libertarianism will never work: individuals are often confused, and some have bad intent. you need society to be regulated and made secure by a government structure that can be held accountable, and you need to pay for it. the alternative is simply worse

we need government to save us from ourselves: take all of the abuses of every government that ever existed, and guess what: the abuses of the individual are far worse. whether simple petty crime, white collar crime, or well intentioned but confused effort, individuals are worse than governments, when given no structure, no security, and no regulation

i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government

and i will probably be flamed for saying all of this, but i don't care, bring it on. i like being the one who says the ugly truths about the world that no one wants to admit

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[hedwards]

But, courts and government are essentially mob justice. The only difference is that it's mob justice in slow motion so that we're more likely to find the cases where the mob was wrong. But you do still get people going to prison because of what the mob thinks, the courts at least in the US, tend to be tilted pretty favorably to the prosecution.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Anonymous Coward]

"i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government"

With that, I thought you'd be less opposed to gun ownership -- that is, if you thought the government was ineffective at stopping crime. Maybe you don't.

I don't believe the abuses of the individual are far worse than government abuses either, especially not when considering every government that ever existed. You don't have to go very far back in history, either, to see mass liquidations of populations, i.e. the several that have happened during the 20th century. Also legalized slavery, burnings for heresy, bungled (or deliberate) policies that led to famines, human sacrifice, and all that, depending on how far back you want to go.

Don't take this to mean I think my fellow man is an innocent lamb, however. I feel pretty much the same way about him as you do: stripping away all government will not leave you with a peaceful brotherhood.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[metamechanical]

i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government

The catch is, your government is selected from amongst your fellow men, and frequently consists of the worst of them. The individual may be disorganized and chaotic, but a hierarchy is organized and directed at the whims of the most power hungry individuals. Do you fear uncertainty more than oppression?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. -- C.S. Lewis

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference is that it's mob justice in slow motion so that we're more likely to find the cases where the mob was wrong.

See those words there? "More likely"? You're effectively saying that courts and government are better than mob justice right there.

There is no perfect form of governing. None. Period. Human nature ensures that. But some ARE better than others. It's best for a society to pick the best one they can, even if it isn't perfect. Because it isn't, and it won't be. In this case, instantly lynchmobbing the innocent without any discussion or debate due to a lack of communication, in my humble opinion, makes for a far, far worse form of governing than a court system. The court system isn't perfect, but at least I can be assured that, if I happened to just look like a guy who recently went on a murder spree and whipped up the emotions of the public, I'd have a more likely chance of proving my innocence and escaping death before it's too late than if a bunch of pitchfork-and-torch weilding maniacs pointed in my general direction and shouted "THAT'S HIM!".

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[JSBiff]

"But, courts and government are essentially mob justice."

No. Most people are pretty stupid. I include myself in this. Most people can be easily misled by misleading 'evidence'.

Courts provide a structure of 'rules' of evidence that attempt to filter out the most egregious bad evidence. Will lawyers and prosecutors still attempt to enter into evidence any BS they think can mislead the jury in their favor? Yes, but the judge doesn't always allow all 'evidence'. Mobs, like in this case with EasyDNS, often listen to 'hearsay' - second or third hand witnesses. Courts long ago determined that in most cases, anyone who is not a first-hand witness is worthless, and so deny hearsay testimony.

If the people who attacked EasyDNS hadn't listened to 'hearsay' (e.g. inaccurate reports from people who screwed up the name in the process of reporting), they wouldn't have attacked the wrong party.

Courts benefit from the accumulated experience of thousands of years of jurisprudence. Mistakes are still made - we should continue to refine and reform our court systems (for example, I've lost faith in the 'jury of peers' model - most people are too stupid and too uneducated to be good jurors; I'd personally rather see a pool of professional jurors with education not in law, but in logic, in various scientific and engineering backgrounds (the better to evaluate evidence and arguments), in criminal forensics, accounting/financial, etc - the courts could then make sure that an appropriate set of jurors expert in fields being investigated by the case at hand were selected - so a securities fraud case could have at least a couple or three jurors who are *experts* in financial and securities fraud on the jury to evaluate the cases presented, etc).

Still, I'd rather be tried by a U.S., Canadian, or U.K. court than an angry mob just looking to punish *someone*.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

that cs lewis quote sucks, it is logically unsound

1. it presents a false choice, as if there are only two kinds of government possible, when in truth there are thousands of kinds, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the two archetypes cs lewis says we are forced to choose between

2. you cannot satiate a tyrant. when he has 4 palaces and 3 gold toilets, he will want 8 palaces and 6 gold toilets. selfishness and greed know no bounds. that's not to say that the patronizing condescending moralist who wants to tell you how to live for "your own good" can be satiated either. it is simply to say neither type of asshole can be satiated, and to say one can and the other can't is extremely lame

in all honesty, cs lewis is a moron to imagine some sort of limitation exists on the desires of robber barons. and to construct such a contrived logically incoherent pile of crap as that quote above to justify to us that we should be content living as slaves under the moneyed classes is frankly ignorant and repulsive, and a good reason to hate cs lewis for bad intention and faulty thinking abilities

thank you for creating in me a new strong dislike of cs lewis, for his logically flawed, bad intentioned thinking in that disgusting quote. what an asshole

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Skidborg]

I cannot take anyone seriously who actually uses the phrase "we need government to save us from ourselves", even if it is said with a straight face. Also, you support breaking copyright law in your signature, but at the same say that that the government has our best interest in mind. As such, congratulations on your well worded and almost believable parody of sheep-minded philosophy and thank you for giving me a good laugh over lunch break.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[paulpach]

it is why we have courts. it is why we have government

Do you even for a second think that the court or goverment are going to punish Amazon and EveryDNS for banning wikileaks???. Government was likely the one pushing them to cut it off.

i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government

Your fellow man does not lie, steal, sabotage, commit war crimes, kidnap, torture, tell you where you can go and what you can do, throw you in jail for victim less crimes or if you protest, keep anything it wants a secret, and forcibly take your money to do all this

You are fearing the wrong guy

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[AltairDusk]

which is why increased gun ownership in peacetime civil society is a gateway to more injustice, not a salvation from it

You make the serious mistake of assuming that someone who owns a gun is going to act as their own judge, jury, and executioner. Please by all means if you enjoy being the one who says the ugly truths then go for it but stick to the truths. Mixing in your own opinion weakens your argument greatly.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing, then, that we don't have a government made up men.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

as if our current manifestation of government is perfect, or that anything i said says you should never question our government

or that by saying we need government, i somehow mean we deserve the corrupt government we currently have

why don't you try thinking first, then commenting

i am very unhappy with our government. but at least i have enough brains to know that no matter how much our government sucks, no government or vigilantism or libertarianism is far worse

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

"You make the serious mistake of assuming that someone who owns a gun is going to act as their own judge, jury, and executioner"

ok, then why carry a gun?

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

a system of accountability is something you can build into a government. you can't get that from some random yahoo making up his own mind with limited info. all governments are as flawed as the men they are made of, but with systems of accountability built into them, a government can do better, on average, than random yahoos

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[NoSig]

You brave you, standing up for the man and traditional status quo values like that!

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[metamechanical]

...when in truth there are thousands of kinds, many of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the two... and to construct such a contrived logically incoherent pile of crap as that quote above to justify to us that we should be content living as slaves under the moneyed classes is frankly ignorant and repulsive...

I completely agree with you. There is a wide continuum of possible governments. Upon rereading the quote, I believe Lewis was simply conjuring up a second image to act as a foil to the first. Nearly everyone can understand that living under a robber baron is bad, and if given a choice, would not do so. Thus, if a government of moral busybodies is worse, one should not want to live under that either.

thank you for creating in me a new strong dislike of cs lewis, for his logically flawed, bad intentioned thinking in that disgusting quote. what an asshole

That was never my intent, and I'm sorry if I've given you some insult. I merely aimed to state that you would be no happier living under an oppressive bureaucracy of my design than I would be in a "society [that is] regulated and secure". Is complete anarchy good? Certainly not, I agree with you, and would add that anarchy inevitably leads to despotism. As you said yourself, though, there are thousands of kinds of government; championing an overly powerful one because of a fear of your neighbor is not going to give you the results you believe it will.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[metamechanical]

Because the police aren't there to save you and your family from a robbery, they're there to file the paperwork after your robbery turns into a multiple homicide... :^(

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Duradin]

So you can be on equal footing with the person that decided they were your judge, jury, and executioner. That may dissuade them from holding court in the first place.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

there's no reason to fear telmarines ;-)

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

that's fine

and then you are wrong: it is entirely correct of me to assume that someone who owns a gun is to act as their own judge, jury, and executioner, in direct contradiction to your assertion in your grandfather comment

go ahead and own a gun. but don't lie to yourself about what you are really doing

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[circletimessquare]

the purpose of outlawing guns is not to prevent them from getting in the hands of the intelligent committed criminal. the purpose of outlawing guns is to prevent them from getting in the hands of the casual idiot

by definition of what a casual idiot is, if guns were hard to get, they simply wouldn't get them

meanwhile, the intelligent committed criminal will still have a gun when they are illegal, yes

but again, by definition of what an intelligent committed criminal is, even if guns were legal, and even if you were packing some serious heat, the intelligent committed criminal would make sure they intend you harm in such a surprise way that you won't be able to defend yourself

so this whole fallacy that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" is silly. outlawing guns is all about preventing the random casual violence by hotheaded idiots. not the cunning monster who will always have a gun, regardless of legality, and will certainly make sure they get the drop on you if you are in their crosshairs, no matter how much heat you pack

the real lesson is that guns only matter in the hands of idiots, because idiots are unpredictable. so just make sure idiots don't get guns. the other lesson is: don't do anything that will make you a target of an intelligent cunning criminal monster. because then you are simply doomed no matter what firepower you own

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[BJ_Covert_Action]

whether simple petty crime, white collar crime, or well intentioned but confused effort, individuals are worse than governments, when given no structure, no security, and no regulation

i fear my fellow man far more than i fear my government

Maybe you need to start hanging out around better people? Or move to a safer area? I can honestly say I have never felt this way in the past decade myself. The folks that I hang around and encounter on a daily basis tend to disagree with me on a lot of things, but I have never feared them. Then again, I don't really give many folks the opportunity to have any power over me. Similarly, I recognize that bad shit happens in life, sometimes due to the actions of folks around me, and I have trained myself to deal with unexpected circumstances, but that's just me.

On the other hand, I fear my government quite a bit. I know that if I piss off the local cops in my town too much, they will profile me, they will harass me, and they will pester me until I slip up somewhere and they can publicly hang me for it (metaphor). I also know that, if my government so desired, it could declare martial law in my area (it wouldn't have a reason to, but it could), and it could proceed to invade my home with an army that could make my life hell. Now, is that likely to happen? Nah. But I have far fewer protections from such circumstances than I do from the dangers presented by individuals around me. I can deal with one or two men fine. I can't deal with an army (be it of lawyers, soldiers, police officers, or whatever) that has a massive surplus of resources compared to myself, if I get entangled in something (directly or indirectly) that leads to my persecution by such a band. Now, presumably we have things like the Constitution and the Law to protect us from such incursions on our natural rights as human beings and free men, but frankly, I don't trust those things to protect me anymore. The more I look around, the less it seems like those entities are used to protect the individual anymore.

So I don't know. Maybe you and I have just had vastly different experiences. But if you honestly fear your fellow men far more than the government, then I would say you have much more faith in the power of things like the voting process, or you hang around some really shady assholes. Or maybe you just need to get out and meet and try to understand some more people. The vast majority of folk that I meet are decent folk. They might be slow, or stupid, or petty, or ridiculous in some respects or another, but very few of them are what I would classify as bad or dangerous people. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because your post is mainly an opinion piece and opinions can't really be wrong. But I did want to tell you some folk out there have a polar opposite opinion, and maybe give you some insight as to why.

It's easy to control, confront, and cope with the abuses raised by an individual man standing next to you. It is very difficult to do the same for the abuses raised by a government presiding over you.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even for a second think that the court or goverment are going to punish Amazon and EveryDNS for banning wikileaks???. Government was likely the one pushing them to cut it off.

Why should the government do anything about that? There is nothing illegal about it, nor should it be.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[metamechanical]

I wasn't the [great]grandfather ;^)

Also, ironically, I don't own a gun (although I have no issues with them, per se). I just know that if everyone in my neighborhood did, I would never try to break into their houses (assuming I even had the intent to do so in the first place).

All suppression of a good does is force the creation of a black economy - ne'er-do-wells will still acquire the weapons if they were illegal. In a world where the gun hadn't been invented, I would be loathe to introduce one, but the cat's out of the bag, and if there are malicious individuals with them, I would prefer to be able to reduce their odds of using them against me.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'll bite.

All of what you say may be true. But pray tell, what is this "government" you've pinned your hopes on composed of? Puppies, rainbows and unicorns? Or maybe those self-same confused, stupid, mal-intentioned individuals of whose tyranny you are so afraid? Only the confused, etc.. people in government can pass laws that protect them in their ill intent, incompetence, etc.. And those laws become binding on everyone.

Your criticism is true, as far as it goes. The government is not, however, the universal panacea. There must be balance. I believe the DDoS attacks on those companies that have opposed Wikileaks are justified, and I support their ideas. They demonstrate that the balance has shifted toward the government-controlling side, and it's time for a shift back. Like you, I also like saying the unpleasant truth. :)

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[BJ_Covert_Action]

you cannot satiate a tyrant. when he has 4 palaces and 3 gold toilets, he will want 8 palaces and 6 gold toilets. selfishness and greed know no bounds. that's not to say that the patronizing condescending moralist who wants to tell you how to live for "your own good" can be satiated either. it is simply to say neither type of asshole can be satiated, and to say one can and the other can't is extremely lame

And yet, in your original post, you advocated the notion that fellow men were to be feared more than the government. If you think this low of these two types of people, why would you want to put either in charge of a society to tell people how to live? Or, better posed, as I don't want to construct a false dichotomy, who would you put such responsibility in the hands of? I realize we do not live under a monarchy in the States, and the idea is that the competing interests of those with power will help negate the abuses of any individual ruler (politician). But what happens when those put into power are often groups of like-minded individuals? What if the massive number of people with power in a society are moralists, who each think they can improve the lives of those below them? Then the checks and balances theory starts to shake on it's foundation assumption that those in power will have different interests, and the whole system gets fracked up.

I realize I am just pointing out a flaw in a system, rather than proposing a better system, but I don't understand how you can advocate the fear of individual men over the fear of government when the government merely exists as a group men (each individually flawed) with a single pointed interest, or group of interests. It seems to me it would make more sense to fear the entity that has superior resources over which to exert power over you, which, in this case, is the government.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Blakey Rat]

Do you even for a second think that the court or goverment are going to punish Amazon and EveryDNS for banning wikileaks???.

Why should they be punished at all? Did they do something illegal?

You're making an awfully large leap here.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[LordLucless]

libertarianism != anarchy

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[AltairDusk]

that's fine

and then you are wrong: it is entirely correct of me to assume that someone who owns a gun is to act as their own judge, jury, and executioner, in direct contradiction to your assertion in your grandfather comment

go ahead and own a gun. but don't lie to yourself about what you are really doing

Self-defense is a fundamental right and is part of any living creature's natural instinct. If you classify carrying a gun for protection as "judge, jury, and executioner" then logically you should also classify any form of weapon or martial arts training under the same category. The police can't be everywhere and they're not always around to protect you.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[AltairDusk]

And when that intelligent cunning criminal monster realizes there's a lot of money to be made selling guns to criminal idiots? Before someone says it would be too difficult to smuggle in that many guns take a look at how well the drug war has been going.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[kubernet3s]

This is not vigilante justice, everything which has occured is a civil matter. If someone commits a polarizing action (which WikiLeaks certainly has), then it certainly is the right of those people who disagree to hurl insults at them, but by the same token it is the right of those who support that person to hurl insults right back. If it is EveryDNS' intention to slam shut their storefront as Assange approaches, they are going to have to deal with a little graffiti. The internet companies which have decided to hamper WikiLeaks are committing civil actions, and more than that, unsavory and spiteful civil actions. A response to low and spiteful civil actions is another low and spiteful civil action. A question of the legality of EveryDNS v. DDoSer's actions is really an academic question and certainly not a distinction that is intended to be exploited to the benefit of either party. If you go around spitting in people's faces, don't run to the police when someone leaves dog poo on your stoop. One is illegal, yes, but that doesn't mean you don't deserve it.

Re:and that's the problem with vigilante justice

[Skidborg]

The problem is that you're talking as if the only options are the horribly corrupt government you have now, or anarchy.

Yes, there needs to be some form of government or another, but what you are headed in the direction of having isn't much better than mob justice with the "law" being carried out by a minority rather than the majority. Conflict is never pretty, and sometimes innocents get hit in the fallout, but just passively sitting by while the government builds up into a police state is unacceptable.

Maybe I should just stop there, I don't want to get held for questioning next time I cross the border.

On another note, it might help people understand you if you figured out what capital letters and the more complex forms of punctuation were for.

Re:Shut up

[spun]

Honestly, what are you trying to accomplish with the insults? Trying to hurt my feelings? Seriously, do you think that works? Your insults are just precious. I mean, calling someone a preschooler and a baby is just adorable and refreshing in these profanity laced modern times.

Trying to look the big man? I don't think anyone cares. Doing a little trolling? You get one response from me, just for fun. I like trolls. Especially adorable profanity avoiding trolls like you seem to be.

Carrying around that much anger can be really bad for your health. Anger management classes, meditation, or just some good old fashioned sex might help bring your blood pressure down before something important goes pop.

I do hope you enjoy the attention. Interacting with other human beings feels good, doesn't it? I know the type of interaction seems irrelevant, but you should try "friendly" interactions, they feel even better!

Cause? What Cause?!

[Capitis]

A cause that condones egregious irresponsibility for the handling of sensitive information? A cause for Anarchy? What's next? Bank account data and credit card numbers released in the name of "free speech"? Or maybe some jackass will steal and publish the codes to unleash a nuke from some third-world nuclear power?

Give me a F'ing break... All you self-righteous soft-skinned assholes pursuing this "cause" enjoy freedoms you have not earned.

If PFC Manning is found guilty of treason he should hang. Assange should be "disappeared". And wikileaks should be harvested and relegated to the stinking pile of ideas conjured by a sub-human sub-culture with absolutely no grasp on anything remotely resembling reality.

Re:Cause? What Cause?!

[hedwards]

Citation necessary. The US government declined to negotiate for redactions under the idea that they could stop the release, they were wrong. If it were that egregious and irresponsible, I doubt that Wikileaks would have offered and that the government would have declined. In other words it's their own damned fault for being so arrogant.

What you're suggesting is pretty barbaric. Pfc Manning apparently committed a crime, I'll wait for that to be formalized before accusing, but even if that's the case, Assange and Wikileaks haven't done anything wrong. By that stretch of reason, perhaps you ought to be "disappeared" as you voting seems to be dangerous to the American state and our service personnel.

Re:Cause? What Cause?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think that the end-results of PFC Manning's actions are probably going to be pretty barbaric too? (And he will get the benefit of a trial... I suspect many caught up in this will not have that same luxury.)

Regarding Assange... just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something, nor does it make it right. The concept of "wrong" extends beyond written law.

I am totally into Wikileaks now!

[Quiet_Desperation]

YARGH! Damn the G-Man, and let slip the DoS scripts of war!

Hoist the skull and crossbones, me mateys, and let us send these oppressive land lubbers to the briny deep!

Wait, what, falsely accused? (lowers authentic reproduction sabre) Aw, nuts. :-(

Not really "EveryDNS" either

[mysidia]

The name of the company is DynDNS.com. You know, the company that bought EveryDNS; disabled the ability to sign up for new EveryDNS accounts?

And has been in the process of transitioning accounts from EveryDNS to "DynDNS.com" custom services over 2010, probably so they can eventually discontinue the free services and force everyone to pay?

If they made the decision to kill Wikileaks' services, they should take responsibility for the shutdown, and not hide behind the legacy EveryDNS name which will be a distant memory in some time.

Re:Not really "EveryDNS" either

[Mysteray]

That's right. It was Dyn Inc. AKA DynDNS.

I had had good service with them for years until I told them to take a hike the other day. I was as disappointed as I'd ever been in a corporation.

I moved my DNS serving to another set of hosts and declined to renew a domain. I'm transitioning all my other domains away from DynDNS as they expire.

I find it reprehensible that a DNS server company would respond to you coming under a mild DoS attack would decide to finish you off by stabbing you in the back themselves. Even if their servers were perfect, clearly the company is willing to toss its customers out to the dogs at the first excuse. I have no interest in continuing to pay for service from such an unreliable partner.

Re:Not really "EveryDNS" either

[apoc.famine]

This is a kdawson article...there's a reason a huge chunk of us have blocked his posts as an editor. They are largely incorrect, poorly written, steaming piles of shit. I'm out of ways to hide from his crap now that other editors post it for him. Well, other than just quitting slashdot entirely...

Re:Not really "EveryDNS" either

[mysidia]

This is a kdawson article...there's a reason a huge chunk of us have blocked his posts as an editor.

Perhaps the journalistic integrity of editors is something to write GeekNet corporate management / corporate governance about?

I doubt merely posting a comment here will go far

I'm dumping slashdot. Know a sci/tech site with functional editors and a quality comment system?

I know of no reasonable alternative

Re:Not really "EveryDNS" either

[Anonymous Coward]

they were being d0s'd. it was costing them thousands and thousands of dollars for every
day it was happening. for something they gave to wikileaks for FREE. it was also disrupting
service to paying customers.

i find it amusing people think they did something wrong. they have a business to run.
perhaps wikileaks needs to start paying for specialized services now that they are "big time".

So ?

[unity100]

what justice would it be ? regular justice ? which can only be had, if you have heaps of cash. and even in that case you would get less justice than those who have more ?

the justice which is totally subservient to the administrations, which are actually people who have won elections with direct or indirect support and funding of established private interests ? even the supreme court judges are directly appointed.

if, you leave no justice option for people to pursue, they pursue mob justice. thats the cold hard reality of life.

EasyDNS letter to all customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a letter EasyDNS sent out to all customers last night about this issue. I removed Mark Jeftovic's email and phone number for obvious reasons:

This notice is being sent to all active domain holders on the system.
Your easyDNS username is:
Email address on file for account:
Date username was created:
Username was created from:



In this email:
1. The WikiLeaks Situation

-----------
1. The WikiLeaks Situation
-----------

It is not very often we send out an all-member email blast, so when we do, it's usually pretty important.

First and foremost, everything is ok. Please read the information that follows carefully but understand that we would never do anything that we thought put our members at risk.

The Basic Background:
=====

On Friday, Dec 6th, easyDNS was mistakenly identified in various online channels as the DNS provider who revoked DNS Services for the controversial website Wikileaks, and a large internet backlash ensued against us. In fact, the Wikileaks DNS provider was a free DNS provider in New Hampshire called "EveryDNS.net". At some point this was mistakenly reported as "easyDNS", and it gathered momentum from there. The problem was compounded on Saturday, Dec 7th when the New York Times picked up the story, also incorrectly identifying us as the party who "unplugged" Wikileaks. The U.K based Guardian did the same thing again on Tuesday, December 7th.
A timeline of events has been posted here:
http://easyurl.net/5119e

And our original rebuttal to the misinformation was posted here:
http://easyurl.net/a3191


easyDNS Added To WikiLeaks.ch DNS
======

On Sunday, Dec 5th, we were approached by a group acting on behalf of Wikileaks and asked to provide DNS for their fallback domain WikiLeaks.ch. We agreed to this on several conditions.
http://easyurl.net/fbbff

We did not take this decision lightly, and whichever side of the fence you fall regarding what Wikileaks is doing, after being falsley accused of unplugging Wikileaks and taking an enormous amount of backlash for doing so, we felt we did not have much choice in the matter but to forge ahead and take on this challenge.
http://easyurl.net/507d8

We actually consider this part of the situation to be well in hand. Tonight the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail ran a story about this bizarre sequence of events and we expect it to run in the print edition (possibly as the cover story) on Thursday, Dec 10.
That story is here: http://easyurl.net/gandm

However, and this is large part of the motivation for this email, the Globe story concluded with the following quotation, which we feel sends the wrong message, as I mispoke when I said the following: "Our lawyers have basically told us that if they want to shut us down they'll show up with an injunction and we'll have to follow it and then try and have it overturned later," This may connote that we think we, as a company, may be shut down. We do NOT think this is going to happen at all. What I meant to convey in the quote is: "If they want US (easyDNS) to shut THEM (WikiLeaks) down, they'll show up with an injunction, and we'll have to follow it, etc etc". And if that happened, we would be terminating service to wikileaks alone. Further information about this clarification is here:
http://easyurl.net/gm2

We wanted to let you know as an easyDNS member, that we are taking every measure to ensure that this situation does not disrupt the continuity of your domain services at all. In conclusion, we believe we have taken the course of action that fits who we are as a company. If you've been dealing with us for any amount of time then hopefully you know w

Re:EasyDNS letter to all customers

[Anonymous Coward]

December 10 is not a Thursday.

Not all information is equal

[fishbowl]

For some information, it is a privilege for the producer to have a medium via which he can disseminate that information. Being a privilege of benefit primarily to himself, he should be willing to pay for whatever costs are involved.

For other information, it is a privilege for the consumer to have access to it. In this case, the consumer should be willing to pay or provide something in return for the privilege.

Problems arise in the first case when the producer takes the opinion that he is providing some valuable service to a consumer, as opposed to himself.

Problems arise in the second case when the consumer would be happy to exchange something in return for content or for use of a medium, but faces the problem of limited or nonexistent options for doing that.

We tend to come around again and again to marginally adequate solutions, such as "eyes on advertisements" or "micropayments" or "exchange of personal or demographic data". Here is where a visionary genius is welcome to solve the problem in some revolutionary way. Any volunteers?

Re:Shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look, it's Michael Kristopeit posting AC

So you have no problem

[wiredog]

with the collateral damage when EasyDNS is mistakenly identified as having cut off wikileaks?

Re:So you have no problem

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So you have no problem... with the collateral damage when EasyDNS is mistakenly identified as having cut off wikileaks?

There are often negative side effects to civil disobedience and that is certainly regrettable (although I'm unaware of any DNS attack against EasyDNS). One might argue, however, that the fact that several major newspapers ran with articles misidentifying the company argues that we need real change in the way information is disseminated and maybe a many eyes approach such as wikileaks has merit.

We 3 America.

[Steeltoe]

Hollywood
IT industry
The PC era
The Constitution
Freedom of press
Big Cars
California
Texas
Research and Science
Freedom of love / preference of gender
Freedom of religion
Opportunities
Fantastic Nature
Great Personalities
Strength and Commitment

USA has been the focus of the World now for at least 50 years.

Now it's time to take advantage of what internet can truly mean for democracy, and get rid of some practices which are undermining true representative democracy. And yeah, getting rid of the two-party system would be cool too, but if you'd like to keep getting screwed over, that's your choice.

Don't mistake critique of hatred, like islamic fundamentalists are crying about whenever someone mentions women's plight in islamic countries.

It's because we care. Truly.

(Yeah, I know you were being sarcastic, but this is a good reply nonetheless I think)

what else do you expect.....

[bennini]

when the government system that is in place to protect the people fails, the only recourse left is to revolt. this is simply a "digital revolt" which is different from what people are normally accustomed to. traditional "physical protest" (i.e. forming a chain of people in front of the entrance to a store, marching down a road etc) almost always disrupts standard business practices or day-to-day activities. It sounds like you expect a protest/revolt to not inconvenience anyone.

additionally, the organizations that pulled support from wikileaks were the first to demonstrate lack of due process. they referenced SLA agreements about "wikileaks using their services for illegal activities" long before illegality had even been proven.

regardless, the mob's activities pale in comparison to the civil liberties that are currently being trampled upon by the government. in that respect, they may be somewhat justifiable.

EasyDNS is a wonderful DNS provider

[osgeek]

I've been using them for ages. They're a great bunch of engineers and they provide a high value service. In the decade that I've been using them, I've never ONCE thought, "I wonder if I should move my domains somewhere else?" I can't think of any other service provider in my life that I haven't reconsidered at least every once in a while.

If you have any DNS business to send their way, show them slashdot's support!

What!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget Wikileaks. Your comment about the Manta, Ecuador base/port is much more interesting.

From http://www.truth-out.org/article/ecuador-evict-us-offer-air-base-china:

" According to STRATFOR, "While this is not the first time China has been made such an offer by a Latin American nation, it is the first time U.S. geopolitical interests in the region have been so closely brushed up against." They forecast that "from a security perspective, a Chinese military presence in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed by the United States as a hostile move and would almost inevitably invite the Pentagon's ire." However, they predict that Beijing, and especially the People's Liberation Army, will try to maintain good relations with the United States to prevent remunerative trade policies such as tariffs.

        There is a historical irony to this turn of events, though neither governments nor corporations are likely to see it as such. Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies notes, "It's ironic that it is China, and not a European power, that would challenge the Monroe Doctrine. The irony is doubled as China turns the original U.S. Open Door Policy of 1900 (designed to allow U.S. access to Chinese markets) back on the United States to get better access to Latin American markets."

I heard they wrote a book about this kind of thing

[QuantumBeep]

I heard they wrote a book about this kind of thing. "A tale of two cities" or something like that. Brothas fightin' the power end up causin' shit.

Fri, Dec 6th???

[hajus]

TFA blog post begins with "On Friday, Dec 6th". That can't be right, Dec, 6th was a Monday. When are they talking about?

Obligatory Benny Franks quote:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                            -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

You have either a very negative view of human nature (not that I blame you too much if you do) or you are selective in your reading of history. Or both.

EasyDNS rocks

[technosean]

As a Sr. Sysadmin, I've used EasyDNS for 4 years for a successful dot com's corporate presence, and also used it to register and provide DNS for a couple of personal domains I own.

They DO NOT DESERVE any bad press. I've always been happy with them, and could recommend them to anyone.

I am not associated with them in any way, and if they sucked I'd say they suck.

Re:EasyDNS rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no smoke without fire, and it's up to EasyDNS to show that the work "Easy" is not the same as the word "Every". It's bit of a conundrum; maybe Levenshtein could help?

something like meth is addictive

[circletimessquare]

i know some people REALLY like their guns, but i'm not aware of a biological pathway in which cold steel and gunpowder creates pharmacological addiction

Geez, I didn't know I was supporting "The Cause".

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS, can't I just get information without having editorials attached to it at every turn? Personally, I haven't made up my mind about whether Assange has done something laudable or despicable, but I doubt he's the Victor Laszlo so many wannabe anarchists out there are making him out to be. And I certainly believe some of the information he's leaked is sensitive and harmful.

Most of all, I have no interest in being part of "The Cause". And since I'm frequenting Slashdot's ad-driven site, and a long time Slashdot editor seems fit to promote "The Cause", I guess it's time to find a new source of tech info.

Someone think of the idiots please

[Anonymous Coward]

If Sarah Palin is entitled to an opinion - then why not Anonymous?

Idiots have feelings too?

After all, if it wasn't for the apathetic, the ignorant, and the truly stupid.... life just might get complex

rationality is the best approach

[Anonymous Coward]

There other ways to bring about change than civil disobedience. The times in which civil disobedience have been successful were in the face of great tyranny and injustice. If you believe in freedom of speech you need to be politically active and gather support for it. Of course it is a bit easier to click some buttons on your computer and think you are sticking it to the man, hence whatever this ddos thing is all about.

EasyDNS are pretty good

[scurvyj]

Yeah I've been using EasyDNS as one name service provider for quite a while now and they are a bit unique in that they have a website that actually works (and isn't full of javascript, flash, advertising or other such crap).

I did do a bit of a double-take when I saw EveryDNS and EasyDNS, and had to peer at the wording to separate out the meaning. Glad its been cleared up though.

Go EasyDNS.