WikiLeaks & Anonymous: "Hacktivism" & Freedom of the Internet

[Char. Limit]

Why do we not have a thread on this yet?

Here's a news article to read:

WikiLeaks' advocates are wreaking 'hacktivism'

Since releasing a vast cache of diplomatic cables this month, the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks has been the focus of intense criticism: for divulging classified materials, embarrassing the U.S. government and potentially endangering lives. But it has also engendered the frenzied support of an expanding and loosely defined global collective that seems intent on speaking out - and in some cases waging war on WikiLeaks' behalf.

The most prominent of those groups is known as Anonymous, which this past week sought to disable the Web sites of several U.S. companies as part of what it called Operation Payback. WikiLeaks has also drawn the support of traditional civil rights organizations and advocacy groups, which see the controversy surrounding WikiLeaks as an important test of U.S. commitment to freedom of the Internet.

Thoughts?






Personally, I support the actions of Anonymous, as I believe that what Julian Assange is doing here is right. Now, you can tout "he raped people in Sweden" all you want, but a. that's an unproven charge, and b. it doesn't relate to what I like about him anyway.

 

[Jack21222]

They're not making a political statement, they're just doing it for the lulz. The only reason to ever do anything, by the way.

 

[Char. Limit]

They're not making a political statement, they're just doing it for the lulz. The only reason to ever do anything, by the way.

Actually, I've looked around the anonymous forum, and they really are trying to make a political statement here. Check the Wikileaks section for more detail.

 

[Jack21222]

Actually, I've looked around the anonymous forum, and they really are trying to make a political statement here. Check the Wikileaks section for more detail.

They're pretending to make a political statement for the lulz. Oh, and this discussion is useless without:

 

[wuliheron]

"We have reached a point in our history where lies are protected speech and the truth is criminal."

-John P. Barlow

Despite US congressmen calling for Assange's summary execution and all the pressure brought to bear on Wikileaks by corporate America the simple fact remains neither Wikileaks nor Anonymous have done anything illegal. What they have done is threaten the bottom line of corporate America who today spend billions every electing the government of their choice and spinning the news in their favor. Hence all the distracting hoopla about Assange's personal life and attempts to belittle Anonymous. If they can't outright kill the messengers the next best thing is to discredit them.

 

[Evo]

the simple fact remains neither Wikileaks nor Anonymous have done anything illegal.

It's fine if people want to post that they approve of Assange, but stating opinion as fact, misinformation that hacking is not illegal (Anonymous), etc... is against our guidelines and will not be permitted.

Let's keep this thread accurate and within the guidelines please.

 

[Hepth]

Has any WL personnel (JA for example) made any comment on being supported by illegal activities such as these hackings? I can't imagine they'd publicly condone any of it, as hacking with specific intent to disrupt business or government function is a far cry from hacking to retrieve information.

 

[Proton Soup]

They're not making a political statement, they're just doing it for the lulz. The only reason to ever do anything, by the way.

i'm not sure that anonymous and the average /b/-tard are the same thing. anonymous is issues-driven. for example, one of their more common targets is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Scientology_and_the_Internet".

 

[wuliheron]

It's fine if people want to post that they approve of Assange, but stating opinion as fact, misinformation that hacking is not illegal (Anonymous), etc... is against our guidelines and will not be permitted.

Let's keep this thread accurate and within the guidelines please.

If you know something I don't then by all means tell us.

Although it is illegal for people to steal top secret information, the courts decided long ago that it is not illegal to publish such information. Similarly, a denial of service attack which involves individuals all choosing of their own free will to access the same website at the same time is not illegal.

 

[Evo]

Although it is illegal for people to steal top secret information, the courts decided long ago that it is not illegal to publish such information.

Post your source for this. It will have the be the US law that states this, not an opinion article. I previously posted the section of US law where it is illegal, I'm not digging it out just for this post. Since you're the one making the claims, you need to do the leg work.

Similarly, a denial of service attack which involves individuals all choosing of their own free will to access the same website at the same time is not illegal.

Wrong again. http://www.technicallylegal.org/the-legality-of-denial-of-service-attacks/ This one I had at my fingertips, so I've saved you the trouble.

 

[Pengwuino]

Teehee, child terrorists hiding behind computers.

 

[mheslep]

Despite US congressmen calling for Assange's summary execution ...

Do you not mean Manning? If you actually mean Assange, can you specify the Congress person?

 

[╔(σ_σ)╝]

Teehee, child terrorists hiding behind computers.

Be careful what you say!

lol anonymous.
Remember
Rule #6

Leave anonymous alone. Trying to intepret their motives is meaningless.

Proton Soup

You broke rule 1 and 2.

 

[Char. Limit]

Do you not mean Manning? If you actually mean Assange, can you specify the Congress person?

I haven't checked the entire list, but http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/" might contain a few. Complete with quotes!

EDIT: She's not a Congressperson, but here's http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3251386/sarah-palin-says-target-wikileaks-julian-assange-like-the-taliban/" for ya.

 

[Char. Limit]

Post your source for this. It will have the be the US law that states this, not an opinion article. I previously posted the section of US law where it is illegal, I'm not digging it out just for this post. Since you're the one making the claims, you need to do the leg work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.

Sounds like this case is relevant.

 

[Evo]

This is likely to be one of the laws used in the case against Assange concerning his role.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798

This is getting off topic and is just repeating the other thread. So back to the DoS attacks on private companies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This entire fiasco is driven by the naive and false premises that diplomacy evolved for no reason, and discretion is only fit for crooks and thieves.

Child terrorists hiding behind computers? I say children playing with fire who threaten all of our houses. There are good reasons for good people to keep secrets.

 

[Char. Limit]

There are good reasons for good people to keep secrets.

This is true. However, there are also bad reasons for good (and bad) people to keep secrets. While some of the Wikileaks cables might be innocent, there are also many cables in that pile that prove that the government is, in effect, lying to us. A similar comparison would be the Pentagon Papers of the Vietnam War. The only real difference is that last time, it was the NYT disseminating the information, and the court case I posted above deals with that. This time, it's Wikileaks.

And [part of] Anonymous has taken it upon themselves to sift through these cables and write summaries about them. That way, we [kinda] know if something is innocent or not.

 

[mheslep]

...A similar comparison would be the Pentagon Papers of the Vietnam War. The only real difference is that last time, it was the NYT disseminating the information, and the court case I posted above deals with that. This time, it's Wikileaks.

"[URL is not like release of Pentagon Papers, lawyer argues
[/URL]"[URL WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers are not the same
[/URL]

 

[Char. Limit]

"[URL is not like release of Pentagon Papers, lawyer argues
[/URL]"[URL WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers are not the same
[/URL]

I read both of the articles. The first says that "WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of 'secrets' simply because they are secret." I don't see that... it's a website, it doesn't even have the ability to revel. As a lawyer, he should have better semantics. I believe he MEANS that Assange revels in secrets because they are secret. Now, this may be true. I won't pretend that Julian Assange is a good man, but I will say that the project he started is good. Bad men can do good things.

The second article seems to state that Wikileaks and the Pentagon Papers are different because Julian Assange is different from Daniel Ellsberg. However, the important parts of Wikileaks, including this:

The release of the Pentagon Papers proved highly embarrassing for those responsible for the Vietnam war, showing that they had lied, among other things, about expected casualties. Similarly, contrary to claims that America’s military kept no records of civilian deaths, WikiLeaks’ “Iraq War Logs” show the figure to have exceeded 66,000 between 2004 and 2009 (see chart). The documents also reveal, among other things, many cases of coalition forces killing civilians and show that American authorities routinely ignored reports of torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi policemen and soldiers.

Are the same.

 

[Evo]

Off topic again. We don't want a rehash of information already discussed.

 

[mheslep]

I read both of the articles. The first says that "WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of 'secrets' simply because they are secret."

If you read the article you know it says more than that.

Extended article from Abrams of Pent Papers days:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204527804576044020396601528.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[cesiumfrog]

It will have the be the US law that states this

Why is US law relevant to wikileaks anyway? (Nobody makes a big fuss everytime a woman in America does something that would be contrary to Sharia law, so aren't you begging the question of jurisdiction?) But since you're so certain of the illegality, why aren't we first seeing prosecution of those media organisations within American itself which also substantively performed the same act?

 

[Evo]

Why is US law relevant to wikileaks anyway?

Because it was US information that was stolen distributed.

But since you're so certain of the illegality, why aren't we first seeing prosecution of those media organisations within American itself which also substantively performed the same act?

Read the news if you want to know what the government is doing. There was a long thread on all off this. Your post is also off topic.

 

[Evo]

Closed. Apparently no one wishes to discuss the topic, or read the news.