Operation Payback and Hactivism 101 423
Orome1 writes "While individual acts of hacktivism are inconvenient, something else happens when hacktivists group together — they commonly perform a DDoS attack. Techniques have advanced to automate the process, making the attacks more powerful and thus more able to bypass security controls — the effect, however, remains the same. Let us take a look at the recent Operation Payback which has gained notoriety in the past few months."
Can we PLEASE.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Amongst nerds (which is pretty much whoever is following it on this site) - to 'hack' does not meant the same as 'to crack'.
And calling DDOSing 'hacking' is wrong on both definitions of hack. Especially if the client is just a script kiddie using a program which s/he doesn't know (or care enough) to work out what its doing exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but it sounds a lot nicer than "vigilantism", doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can we PLEASE.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, for many of us, we simply don't care about this whiny distinction between "hacking and cracking".
It's stupid -- back in the day, you could hack some code, or you could hack into a system, or you could pull off a hack and hang a volkswagon from a bridge or make your calculator to something cool that nobody expect. We understood the difference between these things, and it was all one word.
You whiny kids who think you "own" the language and have to be telling everybody the "right" want to say it are just fooling yourselves. Even in the nerd community you think you represent, for many of us "hack" still means exactly what you claim it doesn't. Hell, 2600 [2600.com] has been around since the 80's, and it's always been hacker -- it's got a shitload more street cred than you kids who think that it's always been differentiated. Anybody under 40 who is saying anything about what is "hack" and what is "crack" is too fucking young to know what they're talking about.
It's all the same fucking thing -- "cracker" is a very recent word, and quite an arbitrary distinction which people tried to apply after the fact to make what they did sound less evil and dissociate itself from malicious break-in type stuff. Get over it.
Now, STFU, and get off my fucking lawn.
Re:Can we PLEASE.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Programming is a hacking subculture. Or, program hacking is a subculture of hacking generally.
The people who are program hackers today, would have been gearheads 60 years ago, constantly tweaking their engines for performance.
For further explanation of this concept (Score:5, Informative)
It is Not DDoS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It is Not DDoS (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing.
It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way. Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
Interesting. Though I loathe the "cyber" prefix... That doesn't seem like a completely inaccurate description. Hadn't thought of it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
I got into an argument about this is an earlier topic pointing out that it is also, strictly speaking, non-violent.
it's dickish but it is different from most of the other various forms of attack, a DDoS doesn't involve actually breaking into any systems, it doesn't damage any property and it doesn't hurt anyone.
In a sense it probably shouldn't be lumped in with most other forms of attack online which mostly involve breaking into the system in question or attempting to.
Re: (Score:3)
Their targets have fat pipes the bandwidth of which these attackers probably can't really fathom, and thus their ability to limit service is somewhat limited. However, having worked in system/network administration positions where i've had to help colocated customers defend against attacks, I will tell you that smaller merchants or other online presences can easily be flooded by these attacks and that it does cost them money and time, and cost us lots of time trying to do our level best to keep them online
Re: (Score:3)
Its not cute or funny, its not magically OK because its "for a good cause," etc.
It doesn't have to be cute or funny if it's a good cause. When government stops sticking up for some group of people, the people start sticking up for themselves.
I'm glad they are doing meaningful protests like taking the exact websites that they have problems with, and not trying to blow themselves up in Stockholm and take as many innocent people with them as possible.
Just because its not the most direct or violent action they could take (some digital equivalent of breaking windows or throwing petrol bombs) doesn't make it OK.
But the lesson being learned by new generations is that the government basically doesn't give a crap about you, and is only concerned when c
Re:It is Not DDoS (Score:4, Insightful)
"Cyber-picketers" sit behind a wall of more or less anonymity
Which is necessary because any attempt at cyber-picketing, peaceful or not, is deemed a crime.
often using hundreds or thousands of OTHER PEOPLE'S COMPUTERS to distance their person from the activity
Which is bad. But in the case of this LOIC client, the computers doing the DDOSing are not zombies. They're people who've decided to throw their computer into the picket line.
It really seems to me that this kind of voluntary DDOS is a fairly accurate digital version of the picket line. I mean, how exactly would you picket Amazon anyway? Line up a bunch of people outside their warehouses or something? It isn't like they've got a physical storefront to picket in front of.
That's because you deny access (Score:4, Insightful)
Picketing is NOT about denying access to something, it is about persuading people not to go in. Picketing is non-violent, and non-disruptive. The idea is to call attention to a problem, and to hopefully persuade others to not do business with a place. If you are forcibly stopping people from going in, that's a blockade and that isn't legal.
If you think I'm an asshole, you are within your rights to picket my house. You can stand outside, not on the property, with a sign and let people know, including people who come to visit. However, if you try to block me from entering my house, the police will come and remove you and charge you with a crime. You can't prevent me from going where I want.
Now occasionally protesters do blockade a business as a form of protest. Guess what? They get arrested for that, and they KNOW they will. It is a form of civil disobedience and they understand the consequences.
This is not picketing, it is blockading and it is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is Not DDoS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing. It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way. Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
When you're picketing, staging a sit-in, etc you're putting yourself at some risk. At minimum, there's the risk of recognition, of having your name and face associated with your action. You're also taking some of your time and energy to do something that's of value to you.
For a DDOS attack, you're anonymously pushing a "go" button. Quite possibly you're not even still at your computer while it runs. Woooo, there's a way to make a statement.
The nature of the attack itself strips it of both credibil
Re:It is Not DDoS (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, wasn't there just a slashdot story showing how the pro-Wikileaks "hacktivists" can be easily identified [slashdot.org]? If so, it seems they actually are putting themselves at risk.
Re: (Score:3)
Given all of the articles saying that the anonymous attacks aren't very anonymous, they are exposing their digital faces. They are putting themselves at risk. There are real consequences involved. [theregister.co.uk]
Re:It is DDoS (Score:3)
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing.
It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way. Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
Picketing is a public act. DDoS is not. There is an essential difference. The media orchestration that we have seen over the last few days around DDoD lend me to think me that if there are a few teenagers behind these attacks, they are manipulated by those who want to influence public opinion in the direction of a kill-switch as one poster has mentioned above, and in the direction of measures to rein in on the Internet.
It is all too easy for provocateurs to do as they please, as these actions are anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
More like cyber-thuggery.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing. It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way.
Bullshit.
No picketer ever stopped someone from entering a store. Such an action would be an arrestable offence, as it would involve, at minimum, the physical assault of prospective customers, and probably trespass.
The point of picketing isn't about physically preventing people from patronizing the business in question. It's to raise awarenes
Re:It is Not DDoS (Score:4, Interesting)
No picketer ever stopped someone from entering a store. Such an action would be an arrestable offence, as it would involve, at minimum, the physical assault of prospective customers, and probably trespass...
...neither of which apply to the online equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a cyber-sit-in would be more accurate though. Generally picketers let people into the business, it's just that every potential customer has to walk through the picket line, get shouted at, read the signs, etc. Sit-ins actually attempt to block the business from servicing customers, they're also a bit more shady on the legal side (just like a DDoS). The sit-in analogy also has the benefit of reminding the participants that what they're doing may very well get them in trouble, people who did sit-ins
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really mean in the information security sense of the word "attack", something along the lines of "an aggressive action on the system in question". It's a word with a very varied and somewhat loaded meaning. It is a DDoS though.
Re:It is Not DDoS (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what, every other DDoS wasn't an 'attack", it was an "event"?
Bullshit.
You just don't like the idea that something you happen to support *this time* is being referred to with *accurate*, pejorative terminology.
Well, suck it up, bucko. Your little wannabe-robinhood friends are nothing more than digital gangsters (actually, that's not fair... gangsters have worked hard to build a reputation for themselves, and it's hardly fair to equate them with a bunch of punk script kiddies), and what they're doing is *attacking* websites in a fit of whiny vigilantism.
Now, that's not to say they don't have legitimate grievances. But what they're doing has been called a "distributed denial of service attack" long before these little bastards decided to use it against VISA.
Re: (Score:3)
A herd of cats are incapable of organized crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An important nuance, thanks.
Next Target: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A DDoS isn't hacking but it can be activism (and in this case I'd say it is). The "cyber-picketing" analogy is a good one: It's just the online equivalent of blocking people from entering a building to do business.
Re: (Score:2)
In a world without Don LaFontaine, one Anonymous Coward tries to take his place.
hm (Score:2)
DDos attack = slashdot Effect.
Let's break the law (Score:5, Insightful)
As advocates of Democracy and transparency, let's break the law and act in secret to take down big companies, which in turn hurts small businesses who use these payment services. Let's also inconvenience random shoppers. Let's create all kinds of random collateral damage to make a point about supporting transparency by supporting a completely secretive organization.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I was just at the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial and museum. One of the more interesting aspects of it was that the people motivated to bomb the federal building (and kill infants in the nursery) were upset at the government. They felt the most effective way to change the government was a terrorist attack. The two responsible were caught. One will serve life in prison while the other was executed. They didn't change government, but they did forfeit their lives.
Conversely, families of vicitms banded together, formed a group and went to Washington D.C. to ask for reform in how the death penalty is handled in federal cases. They felt the best way to support Democracy and affect change was to use Democracy itself.
That is such a novel concept.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That won't go over with them, all you'll hear is them complaining that the "system doesn't work" even though they don't put in the effort to make it work.
Re:Let's break the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Protesting doesn't always work. It's not a novel concept. Doing things to break the law aren't going to get them what they want in this case either. You're not always going to get what you want, no matter how you try and get it.
The reality of the situation is that UK's budget deficit in 2010 was almost 12% of GDP. Of course some things are going to get cut. I'm not sure why the students are so surprised. Budgets across the board in the UK are getting slashed. They can be pissed off all they want and protest
Re:Let's break the law (Score:5, Insightful)
University is a cult, it should be regulated as one.
Huh?
I don't want to live in the world you embrace, where the least educated are the highest regarded. A little education is alway better than none. A little more education is always a little better than less. The pridefully uneducated are idiots and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that impact anyone outside of themselves.
Perhaps education is about more than employment (as written by a person who majored in philosophy, living with a woman with english and art degrees). The fact that university has become a glorified trade school is more troubling to me than... whatever your ranting about.
There is no nobility in ignorance.
Also... How the hell do you change society? Care to give us a guide book on that one? Generations change society, and in the mean time we just live with tyranny and injustice? Should we be mad at all those black protesters fighting for rights, since they wasted their time picketing and sitting in, and disrupting poor white people by sitting in the wrong section of buses and diners? They shouldn't have inconvenienced us, they should have changed society in a more polite way. You don't need to use the white man's bathroom, or sit at the front of buses to be successful anyways.
Hell, I would be happy if the streets of my city were closed once a week for protests! It would mean we are doing something other than sitting on our ass talking about stupid. I would be happy even if I didn't agree with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you must really enjoy your job at Conglomo Marketing.
Hurts small businesses... really. Are you telling me that people are so fickle that when they cant buy an item they say " screw it, I'm not buying it! Ohh look a different shiny! Gimmie gimmie new shiny!!!!!!"
In reality they simply wait and buy it later, or contact he company and ask, "I cant buy your custom made beer goggle dispenser, what's up? I want to buy it."
Re:Let's break the law (Score:4, Informative)
Only the public websites of Visa, Mastercard, et al. are being hit. The actual functionality of their payment system has been untouched.
It's a slap in the face without disrupting their actual business.
Re: (Score:2)
api.paypal.com was a primary target, as was amazon.com, which would stop retail purchases.
Re:Let's break the law (Score:4, Insightful)
More than novel, it's incredibly naive. How do you propose that actual people (not corporations) influence their government in any way? How are regular people going to open up our horribly, horribly corrupt government? Politely vote in our Coke/Pepsi elections, and ask them to please tell us all of the illegal and immoral things they've been doing in our name with our tax dollars?
Re: (Score:2)
Reaching a government official and talking to them isn't nearly as impossible as you might imagine it is.
I've talked to my Nebraska Representatives and Senators. I've also reached out to a State Senator to ask for Limited Liability laws to change.
You suggest it is naive. Are you suggesting that Democracy is then broken and pointless? Then why bother fighting to try and preserve it in the first place?
The people trying to take down api.paypal.com, visa.com, amazon.com, etc. were supposedly defending Democracy
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy isn't pointless, but the American implementation of it most certainly is broken.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you can TALK to one of your elected officials or one of their staffers doesn't mean they're listening. I've written hundreds of letters and e-mails and made dozens of phone calls to mine. I often get a response thanking me for my support of the position I was writing to them to oppose, or a polite "Thanks for sharing your opinion, I'll take it into consideration" response. Only ONCE in 20+ years of voting has a candidate of my choice been elected to national office, and that was a major cas
Re: (Score:3)
If you think ours is the epitome of corrupt you should see some of the other governments people have put up with.
Corrupt? Yes. (Redundant question. All politics are corrupt at some level). Horribly, horribly corrupt? Only if you ignore all the actually horribly, horribly corrupt governments out there.
Re:Let's break the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's break the law (Score:4, Insightful)
No one here would be OK with the taking of human life, true terrorism, but honestly, you almost have to cause collateral damage to be taken seriously.
*No association with the modern conservative tea party.
Re: (Score:3)
Touche.
I'd say the only difference here is that the Boston Tea Party was such a shocking act of rebellion and caused such a financial impact that it couldn't be ignored.
The other difference is that the colonials didn't have much choice given that they lived under a monarch.
We live in a Democracy/Republic. Here politicians pay close attention to Gallup polls. Here, leaders can be voted out of office. Here, a legal protest can affect change.
Protesters who annoy and inconvenience me don't convince me to side w
Re: (Score:3)
As advocates of Democracy and transparency, let's break the law and act in secret to take down big companies, which in turn hurts small businesses who use these payment services. Let's also inconvenience random shoppers. Let's create all kinds of random collateral damage to make a point about supporting transparency by supporting a completely secretive organization.
So in other words, let's use the tactics of the oppressors against them? The formulae for credit scores and insurance rates are the results of conspiracies to milk you of every possible dime, and they are closely-guarded secrets. These people don't care who they shit on in their quest for money, and the people who patronize them are Part Of The Problem. They actively aid the quest for money at the expense of all else.
The rest of your entry is such blatant wanker propaganda it does not bear comment.
Hoodlums (Score:3)
I find it interesting that some people on Slashdot consider them "freedom fighters" of a sort, trying to preserve freedom of speech, when some of the same group have actively tried to interfere with Tumblr and Facebook merely because they didn't like the kind of people who posted on them.
As someone upthread said, these aren't freedom fighters, they're thugs. Just because their targets at the moment include businesses you don't like, doesn't make them less so.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you find it interesting?
The same people talking about "freedom fighters" still have their Amazon wish lists, Visa and MasterCards sitting in their wallets, and are using PayPal to buy that limited edition anime they found on Ebay....
It is simply typical arm chair protesters.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with calling them thugs, if we can come up with some more colorful names for our Government/Business overlords that secretly do illegal and immoral things with our money in our names. To say that we, the powerless people have to play by their rules that they write, and they selectively enforce, is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it interesting that some people on Slashdot consider them "freedom fighters" of a sort, trying to preserve freedom of speech, when some of the same group have actively tried to interfere with Tumblr and Facebook merely because they didn't like the kind of people who posted on them.
As someone upthread said, these aren't freedom fighters, they're thugs. Just because their targets at the moment include businesses you don't like, doesn't make them less so.
I'm not sure what to call them, exactly, but what's clear to me is that they have some power but are clueless in the application of that power to achieve their goals. If they can even articulate what their goals are.
I don't believe for one second that any of the companies they targeted will consider the likeliness of a DDOS response as a decision criteria going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, I don't even ascribe that level of heroism to them, they're a bunch of bored jerks who wander from one pointless attack to another. The attack (failed I might add) on Tumblr was nothing but sheer mean-spiritedness.
All well and good (Score:2)
Hacktivism? (Score:2)
Please. Making a DDoS with a simple program relates to Hacking like Kicking garbage cans out of frustration relates to making really good and creative political demonstrations.
Even if i do not consider myself a hacker, i think think that the following rules apply for most hackers:
a) Hacking is creative, finding interesting ways to do and know interesting things, and communicating them.
b) If its used for a purpose, make sure the purpose harms nobody. Always try to be useful.
c) don't make hacks available in a
What a useless article (Score:2)
I'm sure the kids on 4chan/b/ are enjoying the attention...until they find out the "hacking" kit they installed just uploaded all of dad's financial information.
Wikileaks did it to themselves (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikileaks did it to themselves.
Instead to sticking to the leaking criminal activity or human rights violations, leaks decided to just release everything they were given without regard to consequences.
They are now actually aiding countries like China and Saudi Arabia by exposing all the US information and opinions on them.
Good job leaks.
Re:Wikileaks did it to themselves (Score:4, Informative)
Well it worked .... (Score:5, Informative)
you cant say it didnt work.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This isn't activism (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please.
100 people can sit in at a lunch counter, shutting down service, and it's considered activism and protest.
100,000 organized people could easily shut down 1,000 restaurants, or bank branches, or other retail storefronts by the same behavior. Again, activism and protest.
100-500,000 people can jam up the phone banks to Congressional offices and we call it a "Virtual March on Washington." And nobody suggests it doesn't qualify as activism and protest.
All of these count as activism. Yet when an unknown number of people voluntarily download an item to their computer to participate in a "virtual march" on the website of a bank, or the RIAA, or Paypal, or Scientology, somehow it's not activism?
The major difference is whether the participants are willing or unwilling. In the case of most botnet-based DDoS attacks, the participants are unwilling; their machines have been hijacked and often they don't even know they are participants. In the case of LOIC, they are all willing. They purposely downloaded and installed the software. They can leave it running or only turn it on at specific times. They can easily uninstall it if they believe it is being used in a way they don't support.
What is going on is not a "cyber attack." It is a virtual protest march.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess what, the Taliban calls you a "spoiled brat acting like thugs".
Iran calls you that.
North Korea calls the western world that.
It makes it a lot easier to hate the other side if you give them a derogatory name and belittle them.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it freedom of speech if you don't let the other guy talk?
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
In what way has Anonymous prevented their targets from talking? It's not like the only way Paypal or Mastercard have to communicate is through their website.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. Like they could totally go into the closet and whisper their opinions to the cockroaches. No need to be able to talk to the people who want to listen to them.
Get some maturity why don't you?
Freedom of speech involves freedom from retaliation. If you choose not to do business with them, that's great. But if you prevent others from doing business with them then you've crossed the line.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
Visa, MC and Amazon didn't "choose" not to do business with Wikileaks. They have been "asked" to do so, and presented with the alternative to piss off Wikileaks or the US governments, they choose the (presumably) smaller problem. Note that they were not required by law to cease business with Wikileaks or that the government had any (legally backed) reason to require them to cease business. It was just "convenient" for the US government. They just "wanted" to cut off Wikileaks from its resources.
Visa, MC and Amazon were not required, neither by law nor convention nor any other reason to comply with the "request". They just did because it can be beneficial to do the US government a "favor". Especially if it doesn't really cost you anything.
The only thing the DDoSs did is, they made it cost something. And hopefully companies will from now on be more considerate when doing "favors".
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. Like they could totally go into the closet and whisper their opinions to the cockroaches. No need to be able to talk to the people who want to listen to them.
So they don't have Twitter accounts? Facebook accounts? Or, you know...access to the fucking media?
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
A silly point.
If a thug threatens harm to me or my family for saying something they don't like, that doesn't mean I can't still talk.
But I'd still say you're directly affecting my freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it silly? Amazon, Paypal, and the like are large enough to have access to every communication tool ever developed by the human race. I don't think slowing down or taking down their website for a couple of hours is going to prevent them from expressing themselves.
Think about this: when one of those companies has important information to tell people, where does it appear first: in the news, or on their homepage? Neither. The answer is both.
Re: (Score:3)
A thug putting pressure on them to do as they please... just to make things clear now, you mean Anonymous or the US government? Both tried to "persuade" them to do their bidding, and neither had any legal reason to do so.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
But choosing not to do business with them *is* retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
PayPal, Visa, Amazon, and MasterCard are all saying that they do not want to do business with Wikileaks.
Anonymous is pretty much running nothing short of a protection scam on them.
"Yea you better do as I say or else..."
Some people say the government is doing the same thing and they very well may be.
Isn't trying to force an action by extortion wrong?
I got no problem if one wants to protest by not buying from Amazon, PayPal, Visa, or MasterCard but DOS attack on them is an attack.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you also against civil rights protests that interfered with businesses? Like sit-ins against restaurants that didn't serve black customers?
It's the same kind of thing. The government apparently isn't interested in making companies act fairly to minority customers, and the minority isn't big enough to cause significant damage through passive actions like boycotts. So you're left with vigilante justice or just ignoring it and moving on.
I don't know how I feel about it but I am very curious if people who oppose this DOS attack are also against civil rights sit-ins, which are exactly the same, and being done for the same motivations (even if you don't agree with them).
Re: (Score:3)
The civil rights sit-ins are not the same as the temper tantrum being thrown by Anonymous.
The cause of the civil rights protesters was just. They did break laws to achieve their aims. They also knowingly accepted the very likely (unlike the script kiddies' very unlikely chance) of arrest or worse. Their willingness to sacrifice added to the cause. Remaining peaceful (largely) when confronted with violence added to the cause.
Anonymous is in it for the lulz and the destruction.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it freedom of speech if you don't let the other guy talk?
This. 1000 times this.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you figure? It what way were Paypal or Mastercard prevented from saying what they had to say?
Are you implying that they only communicate through their websites?
Re: (Score:2)
So change freedom of speech to freedom of association.
The Anonymous thugs are out to stifle freedom of association. Amazon should be free to associate or disassociate as they please.
If you can't associate freely you can't speak freely because who you are speaking with (or not with) will draw retribution.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
Freely? Are you kidding me?
Do you really think Visa and MC woke up one morning and found out that "Hmm. We suddenly don't like Wikileaks anymore." And Amazon, Paypal and that Swiss bank the name of which I keep forgetting, all had the same idea all at the same time? Boy, talk about great minds thinking alike.
They didn't "freely" decide to stop doing business with Wikileaks. You may rest assured that they were "asked" to freeze the funds and stop dealing with Wikileaks. Note that they were not required BY LAW to do so. If they were, I'd be fully on your side. There is no law that requires them to cease business with Wikileaks. They were just "asked" to cease business and figured that it doesn't matter, so we better do what the US gov wants, even though there is zero legal reason to comply.
Simply allowing this to happen means that whoever just happens to be in power in the US can basically decide who may and who may not do business, with whomever. Is that what we want? A government that may dictate who may and who may not buy, sell or otherwise trade? Not based on laws but on whim?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This isn't activism (Score:5, Funny)
You forget, this is the United Corporations of America! We'll tie you down with a Bass Pro Fishing Shop-branded rope and give you 30 lashes with a Wal-Mart branded whip. After it's all done, we'll just put some Neosporin on there, prop you up on an Ikea couch, and let you indulge in that wonderful cultural pasttime known as "watching television", where you will be informed of other great products and services!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amazon first. Wikileaks didn't host at Amazon until their Swedish provider collapsed under the DDOS they were experiencing. So they moved to Amazon and brought the DDOS with them. Regardless of any government action, it's not that shocking that they kicked them out. Just like you'd kick someone out of your restaurant if they walked in the door and took a shit in the kitchen.
As far as Paypal and Mastercard go, who knows what's happened there. Again, ignoring the government aspect of things, it's been reporte
Re: (Score:3)
As far as Paypal and Mastercard go, who knows what's happened there. Again, ignoring the government aspect of things, it's been reported (and not disputed) that Julian opened a bank account using fictitious information and he also provided a false address to the British courts, what do you think the odds are that he provided correct information to Paypal and Mastercard? Both of them are companies that are trying to do business and they have to operate within the various regulatory environments they are subject to. Allowing people to use false information on the accounts is a violation of those rules. If Julian and Wikileaks feel that there has been some malfeasance they have legitimate means of recourse.
I would like to point out that all of those accounts had been open for months, if not years, prior to the cables even being announced, much less released. You don't find it the least bit odd that those companies just happened to investigate this after the most powerful governments in the world had their dirty laundry put out for all to see?
Re: (Score:3)
Really, I didn't trample on your ability to speak. I just killed your family because of what you said. That totally isn't affecting your ability to speak freely.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is this "hacktivism" is doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch". The overwhelming majority of people don't give a damn about wikileaks one way or the other. It's a side show on the 24 hours infotainment channels, that's all. The main reason being that what Wikileaks is doing has little to no effect on people's daily lives. Especially when most are more concerned with the job/family/economy. Instead they see these "attacks" as nothing more than a group of vandals. Nothing more and when authorities want tougher laws to deal with these "vandals", the public shrugs and says...."alright".
And attacking the public facing websites...okay that may work with Amazon or Paypal. But to Mastercard or Visa? So long as I can still use my Visa Debit card or Mastercard at the gas pump or grocery store, it's not like I notice.
That being said, if they did target the processing systems of mastercard/visa, I'm pretty sure that would be the golden goose the politicians have been waiting for to really clamp down on control of the internet because then you are messing with people pocket books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They never targeted the public facing website for Paypal. It was the ssh port and the api site that they went after. They weren't targeting your ability to visit Paypal.com, they were directly targeting the ability to make a payment.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, they were directly targeting www.paypal.com for awhile but later shifted gears as their collective strength was way down compared to when they were hitting Mastercard and they weren't having any real impact hitting www.
Re: (Score:3)
If they "just" put in a kill switch, we would get off lucky. An attack that knocks a major credit card processing company off the Internet (and thus keeps people from being able to do transactions) would get Congress to be cranking out bills in record time. Think USAPATRIOT act, where Congresspeople had to sign the law or be considered weak on terrorism.
Instead, what we would see if "anti-cyberterrorism" treaties being passed with the same wording as ACTA, but because it is for "national security", it wou
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that the politicians need a reason to do this, then you're living on another planet. The politicians will do whatever the Big Corporations tell them to do. To say that the people shouldn't fight back for fear of repercussions is laughable.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, It's 4chan. Have you ever been on /b/?
Here is what happens: Anon comes in with a novelty idea, /b/tards join in "just for the lulz". Then, new Anon (oldfag Anon is a cold, merciless beast. newfag Anon is the conscious, moral, cause-oriented joke of the internet) puts a tag on it and says they are doing it for X. I mean, some said they did the Habbo raids to fight racism. They also said they did project chanology to protect the victims of Scientology. Bullshit, they did it for the lulz.
Of course, DDoSing, Raiding, IRL stalking, etc, are fucking funny, and if it happens to overlay with a good cause, even better. Let them have fun, and bring them down while they are at it.
But in this case, it's pretty obvious that Anon had nothing to do with Amazon Europe going down. Anon is nothing but a bunch of script kiddies, and they don't have the sophistication nor the combined bandwidth to bring down Amazon with a ddos attack.
Re:This isn't activism (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt it is just "for the lulz" (I feel stupider for typing that), I'm guessing that some portion of Anon does care. They probably care a bit more than you think, since there are probably targets out there that could get even more "lulz" with a bit less risk or work. Looking around, there is a ton of media, IRC channels, forums, and such supporting Operation Payback, or Leakspin, or whatever the hell their calling it these days.
There is no rule stating that you can't find amusement in protests. Go to some modern protests, or view some footage of protests in the '60s, there was almost a carnival like atmosphere. People enjoyed it. You don't have to be serious faced, completely devoted zealot to have a meaningful protest. You can find it fun as well. It might even be better, since to be human is to garner more sympathy (how much sympathy do we have for raving, utterly devoted, religious zealot protesters?), and it makes a better mockery of whoever your protesting. Your having fun inspite of their nasty behaviors.
Rebellion has always been playful.
I would never argue against doing things you believe in AND getting your "lulz" from it, I would rather you go protest laughing. Everything is better when there is some humor, and element of joie de vivre involved. There is a difference between being serious about something, and being just plain creepy.
I do have some distaste over anything 4Chan, and specifically /b/ does, but I think thats mainly just a generational, or cultural thing and really has no relevance on much of anything.