WeakLinks

Scott Hardie | December 23, 2010
Not to take any sides in the larger debate over WikiLeaks, but I can't help but be struck by a one-sided characterization in the news coverage. The hackers who launch DDoS attacks against the companies that spurned WikiLeaks have been called vandals, attackers, and criminals - never protesters or activists. How are DDoS attacks different today than sit-ins were in the civil rights movement? When conscientious, organized people objected to a diner that didn't serve black customers, they filled the place and didn't order anything and prevented the owners from making money. When conscientious, organized people object to companies dropping vital support for WikiLeaks, they send so many data requests to the webservers at once that the companies' websites and other services become unavailable. The fact that a few hackers can multiply their effect through botnets and other technological means does not change the nature of what they're doing. Perspective makes all the difference between a hero and a villain.

Now there's a new spin: The hackers are threatening free speech by shutting down sites that they disagree with. Never mind that the human rights and dissident media groups described in the research cited by that article have nothing to do with Amazon, PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard, the companies who are targeted in the pro-WikiLeaks attacks. And never mind that the orchestrated DDoS attacks against those dissident media sites often originate with the very governments they oppose, not from individual hackers acting on their own principles. No, just go with it: Hackers who oppose big corporations and support WikiLeaks are enemies of free speech. That makes a ton of sense.

Samir Mehta | December 23, 2010
[hidden by request]

Steve West | December 23, 2010
What he said.

Jon Berry | December 23, 2010
The problem I see is the huge gap between the people that actually understand the internet and those with the power to try and control it.

Tony Peters | December 24, 2010
meh I am somewhat ambivalent about Wikileaks. I think Julian's a perv but probably not a rapist and he's in Jail for political purposes. Though his personal conduct does tarnish he message in my eyes I care more about the possibility of Bradley Manning getting off than I do about whether or not Assange goes to trial for anything.

Jackie Mason | December 24, 2010
[hidden by request]