Anonymous Wikileaks Supporters Explain Web Attacks

[Guest]

Anonymous Wikileaks supporters explain web attacks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11971259 Be sure to see TV and radio interviews.

There is no question that Wikkileaks has turned into one of the most polorizing issues of our time. The World is split 50/50 as to which side is right and supporters of each side have hacked the other. The last time I saw us split so bad was during and just after the US 2008 elections. Is this merely a matter of free speech or is it far more? Please keep this on the topic of Wikileaks and its supporters or defenders only.

Oppossing opinions are fine as long as you respect the other person and agree to disagree. As long as the topic stays reasonably ciivil it will stay open. If it denigrates into personal attacks it will be closed.

Laura

[JJ]

Old fashioned guy and liberal here. For me illegal activity is illegal activity and what is gained through illegal activity is tainted. By supporting Wikileaks we support that activity. If it was our personal e-mails or private information published on that site would we still support them? It is the same thing in essence. This is private communication made public after it was stolen.

Sure people need to know what their government is doing as much as practical. The press helps keep us free. . But all government is at times a dirty business. It is and always has been a reality of the world. Government can't function any other way.

Then there is the whole question of profiting from illegal activity.The kind of press generated by this will generate enormous revenues too.

Just my own personal belief. I grew up in a family involved in politics on a state and national level behind the scenes. It's a dirty business at best. And our system would collapse if everything was done in the light of day because frankly nothing WOULD get done. I believe the same is true of almost every political body that exists or ever has.

I look forward to hearing other opinions

John

[Carolyn Marie]

In my opinion, there isn't a government that has ever existed that has been completely transparent in all its dealings with its own

population or with other governments. The founder of WL says that he understands the need for some secrets. But apparently, he has

decided that he, and only he, should be allowed to decide which things should remain secret and which should not. The various governments

from which the information has been stolen are not permitted to decide that.

If it can be proven that any terrorist or other illegal act ever committed from this point on, was abetted or made possible through the

leaks he made public, he should be held criminally and civilly responsible. That includes murder.

In my opinion, Mr. Assange is a narcissistic, paranoid egomaniac. But hey, I'm sure he's a nice guy.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest ChloëC]

Your feelings on this depend on that old saying, whose ox is being gored.

Another old saying that Soviet USSR (and by default the implementation of state communism) was built on, is that the ends justify the means.

That means basically anything is ok, if you get the answers you're looking for, meaning stealing, lying, torturing, cheating, murdering. As long the result is a greater good, the means are acceptable. Of course, there are two problems with this, starting with the second - who exactly determines what the greater good is, and is it really good. And now the first - In a civilized society, to maintain societal norms and expectations, certain activities have to be outlawed, murder, violence, theft. If someone is approved to commit those against society for whatever reason, then society itself loses, because why should some people and some activities be deemed appropriate. And who and why are they deeming those. On a simple scale, if some people can avoid legally paying taxes, then all taxes should be eliminated so that all enjoy that benefit. (of course, this borders on the ridiculous, except there are many people in the US who feel exactly that way)

The flip side of all this, there needs to be checks and balances. A strong investigative news media is absolutely needed. The 'news' media today have become little more than a circus, bringing us entertaining act after entertaining act, having little or nothing to do with news.

The judicial system cannot on its own provide investigative powers prior to some law being claimed to have been broken. Congress is totally irresponsible, prefering to play politics with people's lives and the country's future.

People like Michael Moore are seen as buffoons by many people, because of they way the appear in the media. So who is left to provide some kind of check and balance? Unfortunately, it is becoming independent hackers with internet access. The problem there, is what are their motives, will they go after any lawbreaker with an impartiality? Who knows.

If a government, any government is going rogue, exactly what is appropriate for society? Does the fear instilled by what happened on 9/11 provide the impetus for a society to willingly give up mulitple freedoms for the mythical feeling of pretending we're 'safe'?

Tough questions, and tough problems.

Hugs

Chloe

[Guest Lily B]

I generally consider myself aligned with the far left, and I am very much in favor of what wikileaks is doing.

I think that well educated public is essential to a democratic system, and if the truth is that government is dirty business then the people need to be aware of that in order to vote in a way which is best aligned with their interests and safety.

Wikileaks as a whole and Assange himself are in no way responsible for any acts committed by people who have become aware of this information. Thee persons who commit those acts are the ones to be held responsible.

I think the scariest thing to me about all this is how much faith people put in their government, especially considering that since the leaders are freely elected the best leaders tend to not win elections and instead the charismatic and most willing to slander tend to be the victors.

People forget that the people at the top are just that, PEOPLE, they are not necessarily more intelligent, better leaders or well meaning than anyone else.

The things in the documents that talk about America are the least interesting compared to other countries, if you take what country they are speaking about out of the equation. People need to know about things like Shell and Pfizer in Nigeria, for example.

As a human it is your duty not to let people get taken advantage of by those with such wanton disregard for life.

[MaryEllen]

To be sure, there is such a thing as freedom of speech but some things are better left unsaid.

MaryEllen

[Guest Sascha]

I don't agree with the attacks. If one censors someone else who 'allegedly' censored you, it means you are no better than the one who censors. I also don't see how this is free speech? it are stolen private communiques, not someone's opinion which can defended with 'freedom of speech'. If I hack your emails and publish them, is that free speech? So I do not support it. Better yet, it's way too political for me.

[Guest therisa]

Here, is the centre of the whole matter, much of what Wikileak is releasing, will be made public, in the next decade or so. Consisting of personal observation by US diplomats. Much of it, is common knowledge, like Canadians have a low self-esteem image, in how we view ourselves. Personally, I'm split over, whether or not to support the leakers. We, as the voting public, need a honest and agressive press, while balancing the needs of secrecy by our governments to operate, in the grey areas, some many view as illegal. Don't feel comfort with a single individual making these decisions, for me.

therisa

[Guest Elizabeth K]

Justice is based upon the literal interpretation of the law (in most of the so called 'democratic' Western World). Is it illegal to release gvernment classified and confidential documents? Some say it is. The courts will decide.

Is it ethical? Only the people can decide, and even then there will be a division, I predict.

What is my personal view on this? I am still in the discovery phase.

I donno if what happened is good or bad - well... actually I know it will be bad if it polarizes the world, bad if it drives the government even deeper into secrecy, bad if it leads to laws that stiffle the internet. What is good? It lets the world know a bit more of what is going on behind the scenes (but is the world ready for that?... probaby not). But, in my view, it us good because it forces people to 'think."

But what if people DON'T research, sort through the fact and fiction (as best as can be discovered), and instead just go wth the pundant's and the naysayer's comments? What if this gets out of control?

Hacking is wrong under any circumstances (okay, my opinion) as it is always for selfish reasons, usually self-gratification and fortification of the ego. I don't like hackers, especially those who claim they are doing it for my own good.

So this TOPIC? Yes - a great and positive discusson should evolve out of it. We as the gender dysphoric community have much experience with the public, those who are closed minded and tend to close ranks behing one side or the other, those who say they KNOW and want to convince us how smart they are!

We should be a little more cautious.

So people ? PLEASE investigate and ponder. Make your decision carefully and know you still could be wrong. BUT think it through!

I sorta agree with Carolyn Marie: "In my opinion, Mr. Assange is a narcissistic, paranoid egomaniac. But hey, I'm sure he's a nice guy." If he causes censorship laws for the internet I will be PO'd. {Lizzy finally snuck in her feelings on this}.

BUT

I shudder to think where this might lead us later after the government starts 'damage control.". I mean we have to take off our shoes and get body xrayed in airports, now. And the War on Terror, Home Security Office, those are the people that are resisting allowing us to change our name and have a gender appropriate identity. That is what my lawyer explained. COMPLICATED.

Lizzy

[Guest Cynthia Of Creation]

freedom of speech is one thing but

people invading privacy is not freedom of speech

also when freedom of speech is used as a weapon to assualt or discriminate that should not be allowed.

you sre free to train and do karaty but you may not just go up to someone and assualt them with it.

physical and verbal assault should not be allowed.

[Guest Cynthia Of Creation]

ps to my credibility i got 3 years in criminal justice which this was an area of discussion.

[Guest Sascha]

I do agree however, that they indeed polarized people. Tough one. But my initial gut feeling, is that if one releases information about national security infrastructure, then you are crossing a line. I heard they released key landmarks to important security assets, needed to protect the country. Plus, the location of factories where they produce insulin. Don't know about you, but I don't think such information should be public. What if someone who goes haywire decides to put out an insulin plant? I don't have diabetes, but a lot of people do and they would find themselves in life threatening circumstances.

I do feel the need for a mechanism to support whistle-blowers, but honestly, the latest leaks do not carry that load in my opinion.

[Guest EvenClose]

My personal opinion is, that if you must be able to take care of yourself before you try to take care of someone else. So If governments want to put their nose in others business thats ok, but realize your risking not only the lives of the citizens in your country but other countries also. Anything one does these days can't practically be found out, and wikileaks is a great example of this. I don't think that it was the smartest thing to do to release this kind of stuff, but I also don't think its completely terrible either. It sends a message to many that they must be held accountable for their actions. Governments are people too and if those governing people are not doing what is right, I think I have a right to know about it. (at least in the country in which I reside.)

I honestly think its scary that wikileaks was able to get such information so easy. So while I don't support this type of action I almost tend to lean toward it being a necessary evil. As long as something like this don't get

out of hand, I don't see anything overly wrong with being for or against it.

I don't believe anyone would want all their personal information released to the entire globe nor should anyone have the right to do so. Plus, illegal activity is still illegal activity.

It sure is amazing how the web has changed things in the last 15 years.

Before I have a definite answer on all of this, to me, Its probably the most important to find out the reasons and agenda of the ones doing this. Who knows what they might really be.

So ponder we must.

[Guest]

There is no doubt that the governments will propose stricter laws and department rules to ensure this doesn't happen again. Then comes the fight to pass the laws. If it passes the first and second appeals courts the Supreme Court gets the next go-round. Then it gets declared unconstitutional and we get to start over again. Then they pass weaker version 2.0.

I can remember a few polorizing moments in history where opinions changed and in all cases eventually a consensus was reached and they stopped being polarizing. They were the Vietnam war and the OJ Simpson trial. At the time they polorized the country 50/50. Now there is little disagreement on either subject. This too shall pass eventually as well as a lot of court time. You can bet that college debate teams will compete on this Wikileaks topic for many weeks to come.

Laura

[Guest April63]

I don't support wikileaks at all. I just think the whole thing is wrong like others have said. The people at wikileaks do not have the rights or permission to release the materials online, even if some of them were legally received. There are other things published besides government information, but they still don't have the permission to publish those documents. I'm personally bothered it took so long to shut down the site. What they've been doing was illegal from the start, and it should've gone down quickly.

Freedom of speech doesn't even apply here. The whole concept of freedom of speech is that you can speak out against the government without fear of being punished. That doesn't mean you can freely publish what doesn't belong to you.

As for the ends justify the means, in most cases, they don't. Here they don't. So we want transparency, so we break the law to publish documents? That's not civil at all. If we want transparency, we need to go in and implement transparency. Get better leaders and make better laws.

I personally don't think transparency is the best idea. While we should know what is going on in the government and how our leaders are reacting to those issues, we don't need to know everything. Knowledge can be helpful, but knowledge can also cause disorganization and terror. In some cases, withholding knowledge can actual help create order and a functioning society. There are also the security benefits, such as not publicly revealing the locations of insulin plants. We get a security bonus by not revealing our targets and too many details about how we function.

Government leaders have their jobs of knowing and working with details that are not always needed by the general public. We should leave those details there. We can still work for transparency on other issues and details of the government, but we need to put in people who will do that legally for us. Unfortunately, our democratic system is essentially a popularity contest. The better leader only gets chosen if he sells himself better to the public. Leaders are not picked by the needs of our country, or by the skills of the leaders, but only by public opinion or popularity. Our choice in leaders is just a reflection of our society. So while many of us want transparency, many of us would probably do the same thing as the present government if we were put in that position. So maybe we need to work on society in general as well as the government.

[Guest Lily B]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/on_innocent_blood.html

"Last month, the Pentagon concluded that the WikiLeaks release 'did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods" and that "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.'"

[Guest Sascha]

I pondered about why supporters do support this. It's my opinion, so I want to make clear that it might not be true for everyone else.

Okay, I think supports of those leaks are digressing the real issue: being disgruntled with the government. I can follow that, lot of people are. I don't live in the U.S. but I can understand that people are tired of the government, because of various reasons including the economy. And this gives them a rightful reason to get some payback. Just like a teenager wants revenge on his parents when he is grounded. Correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that in the air these days: total aversion against any authority. And I can't blame them, but in blind rage, people make bad uneducated decisions. And I think this is one of them, since total anarchy never solved anything.

[Guest Lily B]

I pondered about why supporters do support this. It's my opinion, so I want to make clear that it might not be true for everyone else.

Okay, I think supports of those leaks are digressing the real issue: being disgruntled with the government. I can follow that, lot of people are. I don't live in the U.S. but I can understand that people are tired of the government, because of various reasons including the economy. And this gives them a rightful reason to get some payback. Just like a teenager wants revenge on his parents when he is grounded. Correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that in the air these days: total aversion against any authority. And I can't blame them, but in blind rage, people make bad uneducated decisions. And I think this is one of them, since total anarchy never solved anything.

I support this not out of anger or revenge but concern for my own well being. I think the information that was leaked makes it very clear that those in government are way more willing to trade lives for power than any person should be.

[Milly]

It keeps the government in check. Im very much in favor of hacking to get information if it shows that government is doing something it should. Then again I haven't read/listened/seen the news in sometime and have been so depressed its as if im been living in a bubble. Point being I don't know enough about the situation to give a good opinion but from the gist of it I agree with the hackers.

[Guest Guest_SL]

Old fashioned guy and liberal here. For me illegal activity is illegal activity and what is gained through illegal activity is tainted. By supporting Wikileaks we support that activity. If it was our personal e-mails or private information published on that site would we still support them? It is the same thing in essence. This is private communication made public after it was stolen.

Sure people need to know what their government is doing as much as practical. The press helps keep us free. . But all government is at times a dirty business. It is and always has been a reality of the world. Government can't function any other way.

Then there is the whole question of profiting from illegal activity.The kind of press generated by this will generate enormous revenues too.

Just my own personal belief. I grew up in a family involved in politics on a state and national level behind the scenes. It's a dirty business at best. And our system would collapse if everything was done in the light of day because frankly nothing WOULD get done. I believe the same is true of almost every political body that exists or ever has.

I look forward to hearing other opinions

John

JJ,

Well put. I think we all want to believe in a Norman Rockwell kind of America and to some extent, that exists in our system of government. But there's this other side. One which is forced to deal with international crime, terrorism and hostile governments who are just waiting for a chance to punch when we let our guard down.

While TV and movie fiction often portrays our government and our security agencies as personal tools for crooked politicians, that's far from the truth. Agreed, in the past there has been abuse of our rights under the constitution by different administrations. Enough to undermine our trust and confidence in our leaders and what may be their personal agendas, but the bulk of the efforts by certain agencies to protect our security and our freedoms is in fact, just what we want our government to do.

You make a strong case by using our posts, E mails and site information as an example. How would our lives be affected if what we communicate here be made public with our names attached along with our site chatter?

I love the freedom this site allows me to have and while I might have the option to move away should my information be made public, others in my family wouldn't and would suffer.

It's my right to have a certain amount of privacy in my life and I earned that right. True, I was born with that right but I also supported our government by serving. Not going to sidetrack by flag waving and in the past there were many instances where I had problems with the business our leaders were doing and there's a lot that can't be justified in the name of national security. That will continue. It's how things work in the world.

I just feel that information that leaves our country exposed to those who would like to see another 9/11, for example, should be protected.

An example closer to home. Let's suppose there were a member here on this site whose intentions were to cause harm to other members. Stalkers, predators and the like. The site might have the ability to block that person but who would track them and bring them to justice were they to threaten or pose a threat elsewhere?

I'm willing to sacrifice certain personal liberties for the good of the country. I do need to be assured that my liberties aren't bulldozed into the ground and this country or the countries of our allies tuned into national socialistic police states, but you have to be realistic about the world we live in.

And JJ, the issue of profit is another good point. Always good money in dirt. Always people to sell off high profile items such as we're seeing now, in the name of freedom of the press.

I could soap box for hours but I just really needed to add my agreement to JJ's post.

SL

[Guest stranger]

Look...our government has a history of malfeasance against both others and the American people.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, manufactured. The Tuskeegee experiments. The Shah of Iran put back into power because we didn't like who the people of Iran wanted to lead them. Saddam Hussein installed-yes, we put him in charge in the first place. The elected president of Chile, assassinated. The Hanford site-still not contained,with radioactive heavy metal sludge slowly headed, year by year, for the Columbia River and the taps of Portland. Numerous other dictators we've propped up to defeat the Soviets and/or assure our oil supply and/or assure our supply of resources, including bananas if you want to go back to the late 1800's/early 1900's and United Fruit.

I think it's not so much what Wikileaks has released so far...it's the fear of the potential...because, all of a sudden, anyone who finds out what sort of mayhem and murder their respective government is up to has access to the world's biggest megaphone-the internet.That, my friends, ought to strike horror into the heart of any authoritarian official, and bring joy to civil liberty fans everywhere.

The powers that be are, for the first time, taking a good look at the useful little golem their computer hooks up to and seeing what it also is. A giant spotlight to be shone upon their dirty tricks. It doesn't just allow you to shop for goodies and check your stocks. Oops.

So Congress wants to censor the internet. Coincidence?

Something else. If Assange was actually releasing reallydamaging stuff, I think he'd get taken out in a more obvious fashion. As it is, he should always fly commercial-and the bigger, the better.

People whom our government dislikes have bad luck with private planes.

And, yes, that all may sound nutty. So before you dismiss me, try either buying these or checking them out at your local library:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Own-Backyard-Central-1977-1992/dp/0807848573

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-CIA-Joseph-Trento/dp/0761525629

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018

[Guest stranger]

Oh-need to add:

Some people here seem to be conflating personal privacy and government privacy. No. If you're a public servant, when you choose to work on the taxpayer's dime, what you do as part of that job is my business.And everyone else's. Your family life, private life, and sex life isn't, but I doubt that was in the diplomatic cables.

Because we're paying their salary. And we will be considered to be morally culpable by others for crimes they commit in our name, in secret-that's why a lot of people in the world hate us, BTW. Since we're both paying their wages and on the hook for their actions we should have a right to know what they are doing, unless it genuinely compromises security.

Why? because failure to know what they are doing in our name compromises our democracy. And that's a very bad thing.

[gennee]

I'm still learning more about Wikileaks. The way I understand thus far, the government has done many things at our expense in the name of terrorism or 'freedom'. The mainstream media is complicit in the cover ups and lies. Persoanlly speaking, I'm glad things are come out into the open. There are so many sellouts and the people who are suppose to represent out interests really are out for themselves. More stuff is going to come out.

Gennee