Red Barn

Word on the web today is, that the U S Chamber of Commerce is tonight's (May 23rd 8PM Eastern) target for an Anonymous DDoS, in retaliation for the PROTECT IP act, which was introduced into the U S Congress last week following last year's unsuccessful COICA bill.

Facepalm.

In the battle for the hearts and minds of everyone whose cooperation will be needed before the Internet becomes whatever it will become next, this move is the equivilent of Anonymous targetting its own cities. Wake up, anonops! Proving that you have the capability to make other people suffer is at best redundant and at worst bad politics.

[04:06] !FKz! Arbor Networks insulted us. Join #arbornetworks now. Attack with us!!! The site is DOWN and it will stay DOWN

...

For speaking out about the crime gangs located at the wikileaks.info mirror IP, Spamhaus is now under ddos by AnonOps.

...

How can you compare DDOS to looting?
I mean, no goods were taken whatsoever.
A service was temporarily disrupted, that's what happened.
Imagine 10.000 people standing in front of a store, THAT is a correct analogy.
But noone smashed a window. Noone robbed the bank.

And what makes you think that everything is ruled by law?
The US, for one, rejected the international crimes court when confronted with war crimes.
Law is good as long as it's MY law, right?
That's awefully convenient..

War is hell.

Paul, what do you think of the findings in Collateral Murder? Do you think that footage should of been released to the public or should this kind of conduct be permitted?

What do you think of anti-piracy companies employing illegal methods of sorting out alleged piracy?

Do you believe that the corporations in the world should regulate the internet based on the amount of money they have to lobby and spend? I've noticed that Verizon has been agreeing with censoring access to 'anonops' however im sure at the same time Verizon would go into a tiff if a backbone refused to peer with it citing "network neutrality".

Assuming you are the Paul Vixie from the ISC for whom i've known for years you already know that the IRS is reviewing a claim of the ISC mis-using it's tax-exempt status to serve PayPal.

What kind of internet do you want Paul? When is an attack an attack?

Nobody is killing people in these efforts. Surely Visa who purchased authorize.net for a few billion dollars can afford to put in a web infrastructure that can't be brought down by rogue attackers. Why aren't these companies simply going to prolexic for protection?

Well it's the same reason the country is in such an economic mess. All the bankers and corporate america know is outsource, cut-costs, screw people and use the governments through lobbying to get their way.

Amazon dumped wikileaks because the government agreed to stop seeking taxes from them.

So you can call it what you want, I know you believe in an open and free internet.

Sure attacking a site is bad. But what do you call it when a government for which is seeking large sums of tax revenue makes a deal to forgive the tax debt in order for a web company (amazon) to dump hosting of something they don't agree with.

These "attacks" could be on a much larger scale, I predicted they could of disrupted the entire internet but so far they have been rather mild.

If you want to defend mega-corporations and governments then pat yourself on the back and remember what happened in Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Bishkek.

That's what government does. They kill.

Which side are you on?

To me, I don't want to inflict any damage to anybody. I'm just protesting like blocking the road / door of a shop, without touching it. And for these reasons:

• First, the US government put Assange as a terrorist, your own CRS in a memo to Senate state this is unlawful. Second, without any verdict or even a decently filed complaint companies such as Mastercard, Visa, Postfinance freeze WikiLeaks accounts; according to western law this is unlawful as we need money to defend ourselves. This can only be done with reasonable terrorist suspicicion. Well, it may be that WikiLeaks is in a grey situation now for the law depends / levels ALL opinions, it is evident nevertheless that Assange was not the leak, therefore being a journalist. How these people can call em reasonable a terrorist, is a riddle to me.
• Second, none of our governments conduct this liquidity freezing action while its clearly unlawful. They don't even condemn it!
• Third, facts are that KKK as well as Rwandese warlords (and many much worse organisations /people than WikiLeaks) didn't experience much freezing problems with these corporations!
• The internet is a relatively new thing. For many of its (inexperienced) users a DDoS blockade would be the only method of defense on the internet (without really harming and without NOT being heard). As technology are playing an ever bigger role in our lives, such laws against DDoS without considering context makes the people less and less able to defend themselves. For your information, if you didnt know it already, this denial of service technology IS not damaging the actual goods, or invading the actual mastercards buildings / materials. Let alone the money, almost any peoples protest costs money. Im not an enemy of mastercard, im a worried customer that doesnt want his liquidity unlawful frozen (for defense possibility).
• Next to this all, the DDoS laws are very young laws. If we look at our trias politica system one could easily conclude that these laws still aren't adult / complete laws. Jurisprudence is still needed in order to achieve just that, as with almost any other law. Why do we publicly deny this evolvement? History has already proven many times that protests play a huge defining role in this jurisprudence. Much of our nowadays freedom comes directly from that.
• The disobedience of the people is an indication to the extend of freedom. Dissalowance of ANY (not all) disobedience would be denieing your trias politica, thereby lawsystem, free society and even your roots

To me, specially the second argument is my main reason to go on the internetstreet and block the door of these corporations. As any self respecting protestor I distance myself from any credit card information publishing or more violent actions like that. For even governments, organizations and many people deliberately choose to neglect their own laws. So I'm fighting for at least approved processing of laws. I'm very open for discussion though, if you disagree with me please send me a mail at mobigee at xs4all dot nl. We could do an eventual discussion on in the open on your platform, if you like.

A very concerned Dutchman. Read more about how my young (ever incomplete, if one accepts humans are always learning) opinion is at www.whazdat.nl

Thank you for your time! And please, im doing all I can to protest without really harming. For these few hours I felt and still feel for above mentioned reasons as a lawful protestor, not a criminal harming the organisations. Remember, I'm the customer, actually ;-)

p.s. i was very tired at the moment i wrote this, excuse me for any grammar and reading signs failures. English is also not my native language.

I'm sure this same logic was trotted out against the sit-in and lunch counter strikes of the 1960's Civil Rights movements.

Your assumption seems to be that these corporations did nothing wrong when they unilaterally censored wikileaks, making a political decision under direct pressure from a state body. Those of us that understand the implications of this are compelled to take whatever meager means at our disposal to speak out against the power-centers of the corporate-state alliance which seeks to hide behind it's veil of secrecy and back-room, unilateral edicts of what is and what is not acceptable.

...Denial of service is indeed forcible and injurious.... Sometimes that is what is needed most in the face of a repressive state. :-)

The forces that want to marginalize Wikileaks as "not journalism" and shut them up are abusing their powers to do so. Their behavior is at best an abuse of power, and likely illegal as well. Read Clay Shirkey's post to see why.

The forces working in defense of Wikileaks are inflicting collateral damage, but it's short term and survivable. The Anons of the world understand that these attacks are survivable, and that they are not sustainable until the targets go out of business. See the Economists interview with Anon.

The organizations caught in the middle are the service providers, who have made the calculation that it is cheaper or more strategic or more patriotic or whatever, to do whatever the powerful, non-law-abiding, non-moral forces are asking them to do. In short, they are bowing to threats from the US Government. They need to be shown that the choice they've made, to pool their interests with the USG, is not without costs.

The best post on this issue is Dave Winer's, reminding us that at the beginning, wars always seem just and exciting and empowering. And at the end all sides wish they hadn't gone to war.

Jeff Allen, jra@nella.org

DDoS attacks are pretty much the internet equivalent of a sit-in protest. Nobody walked off with Visa/PayPal's equipment, or burned any of it. Nothing was looted.

Nor was speech denied. Visa could write or post anything it wanted to, the only thing they lost was the ability to process payments. Whatever harm was done to them is the same they inflicted on WikiLeaks - and that's the point. Had PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, etc, merely spoken out against the leaking of classified documents they'd have only been denounced. By taking it to the next level and trying to starve WikiLeaks they brought it on themselves.

If you can shut someone's service off unilaterally for political reasons what right do you have to complain when you're shut down?

The denier of free speech is the presumed authority (Vixie) whose discourse consists of emotional lies. He's the one trying to twist the framing of the issue to compare peaceful disruption of business to rioting.

It appears freedom of speech isn't allowed on this topic :-)

I'd suggest that those who support Wikileaks do not have the media attention that the governments who seek to prosecute them do. In a world where the government can control the media, and at worst get its coverage for every statement about WikiLeaks, extreme measures are sometimes called for.

I'm not part of the protest or affiliated in any way, but I liken it to when workers picket to draw attention and scabs are sometimes not treated so well. There is a long history of this in America and its the only way the little guy gets heard above the rich and politically powerful. We like to think that the US, equality, and the bill of rights came about out of peaceful protest, but I'm afraid anyone suggesting that is simply historically illiterate. There are mountains of bodies behind every freedom we enjoy.

Sometimes there are financial impacts to politically motivated actions. A DDoS is far more peaceful than the wars which ensured freedom in this country. If you haven't noticed lately, our government and business do not respond to peaceful protest. They only respond to financial interests.

Well said, Paul.

One question that calls your credibility, and hence your post, into question:

1) Where were you when WikiLeaks was being daily bombarded by DDoSes? If you really cared about the rule of law, why didn't you speak up then?

Kind regards,

saidimu

Hence, by using the word law, you propose a closed system where freedom can't be maintained to its fullest potential. The internet is not an "empire", it isn't a state, it is the closest to free that free can get. Thats what Anonymous is fighting for, freedom.

The internet should follow an anarchic system.
What's currently happening can be defined by V in the following quote,
"Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer. Thus destroyers topple empires; make a canvas of clean rubble where creators can then build a better world, rubble, once achieved makes further ruin's means irrelevant"

You want a future where the government can hide behind its lies and deceits to perpetuate the killing of innocents, the incarceration of innocents, the execution of innocents, etc. There's a reason for free speech, it protects the exposing of these lies of government. When government is corrupt, it is up to the people to overthrow their people and replace with a new government that would protect the rights of their people. Establishment of government is to protect the individual rights of people.

When government does not protect the private property of others from theft. It is the people that will force said corporation to hand it over. Paypal stole wikileaks money. It's like a robber taking your money in broad daylight and you told the cop he took it but the cop isn't doing anything. What do you do ??? You beat up the robber to get your money back. Government always turn a blind eye on corporations that take the people's money. There's a reason why people are angry. The government is colluding with the corporations to rip them of all their hard earn dollars. Tell me why didn't paypal release the fund. Paypal is going to DIE !!!

Don't always agree with you, (eg. the Confucian argument "There must be rules" you invoke toward the end here.) But you're right here. Both sides exhibiting what we used to call in Fidonet "excessively annoying behaviour". Blackhole 'em all hell for all I care. Too much collateral damage, though, I guess.

Things aren't always what they seem. Those appealing to the herd instincts, on both sides, are really only seeking to coerce the rule of law to their own side. Shortcuts and ad-hockery inviting bad legislation to make a bad situation worse. Job security for technocrats and internet engineers, if one were to self-serve. Commendable you're not, here.

I've been debating whether to mirror Wikileaks here. Long ago I was asked to and said I would, Only now has WL made that possible in my case. I'm as good as my word, and I believe it's a good project serving a good purpose, perhaps in spite of all those touting and running it with maybe questionable agendas (the apparent Soros tools, CIA agit-prop'ers, possible grifters and market maniupators, etc.) So I'm going to give it a shot shortly if it doesn't cause network issues with my hosting. Happy to give equal space to anyone has a problem of whatever kind with it. Just play nice.

Humans have free speech rights, not corporations.

I have a great deal of respect for you, but please support your statements.

"Denial of service is not merely a peaceful protest meant to garner attention for a cause. Denial of service is forcible and it is injurious. It is not like any form of civil disobedience, but rather it is criminal behaviour more like looting."

Please explain the injurious capacity of a dis functioning internet connection beyond the occupancy of a lunch counter?

Please explain how denial of service is in effect looting, as opposed to simply an effort to block economic activity?

I fail to see how many people actively participating in counter-economic activity in protest to a corporate capitulation to extra-lawful activities by the state. You go on about the rule of law, but please address the subversion of law by the state. The core disquiet over the raw leaks is partially caused by our government's attempts to hide it's own malfeasance.

Respectfully,

1. both sides are willing to inflict collateral damage on innocent third parties and can offer arguments as to why their cause warrants this;
2. each side thinks the other is evil and must be opposed and that the rule of law is neither fast enough nor effective enough to get the job done;
3. both sides believe that the other side must not be allowed to communicate normally with customers, suppliers, supporters, etc.

Duh, just like these guys.