A new superpower

[i blame blame]

MasterCard suspended donations to wikileaks.

As a result www.mastercard.com is down.

A DDoS attack on PayPal, who also suspended payments is being discussed.

Corporations will now have to weigh the financial risks involved challenging a military superpower with those of challenging a "cybernetic" one.

[Typist]

Let's all use the Internet to undermine the government that brought us the Internet!!

[i blame blame]

Let's all use the Internet to undermine the government that brought us the Internet!!

Nothin wrong with using the enemy's weapons against them.

[Typist]

Let's analyze your plan.

The Internet is what gives the little guys, the average person, power in this current controversy. That's what you're celebrating, right?

Ok, so what happens when we little people use our new found power irresponsibly? What happens when we all start celebrating the use of denial of service attacks to attack anybody we disagree with?

The Net becomes inaccessible to everybody, except maybe the big corps and governments who have the biggest budgets and most advanced experts.

Little people lose their power.

The appropriate and effective way to use our power would be to organize support for candidates who will change the government's information management policy to whatever we feel is appropriate.

And if that doesn't work, if people don't vote for our program and candidates, grow up and be adults, and recognize that in a democracy nobody gets their way all the time.

I support a review of information policy.

Your way of going about it is self defeating. Once you convince everybody that denial of service attacks are glamorous and glorious, you can kiss your power goodbye.

[Typist]

Actually, on second thought...

Given the quality of content on most of the Net, maybe clogging it up and shutting it down is not such a bad plan.

I got deeply involved in the Net starting in 1995. At the time, like a lot of people, I suffered from the fantasy that the Net would become an island of intelligence.

This fantasy was somewhat understandable, given that this had been true up until that time. Before the Net was made accessible to the broad public, typically one had to have an intelligent job to access the net, thus the overall level of content was higher than average.

Of course that has all changed, and now the Net is not really much different than TV. Do we really need another flavor of TV? Probably not.

Ok, hit my DSL provider with a denial of service attack, I'm ready.

[i blame blame]

Let's analyze your plan.

The Internet is what gives the little guys, the average person, power in this current controversy. That's what you're celebrating, right?

Ok, so what happens when we little people use our new found power irresponsibly? What happens when we all start celebrating the use of denial of service attacks to attack anybody we disagree with?

That would indeed suck. But has this happened so far? MasterCard and PayPal have acted irresponsibly by simply believing the US State Department's claim that they were facilitating illegal activities, which the US Justice Department hasn't confirmed.

The Net becomes inaccessible to everybody, except maybe the big corps and governments who have the biggest budgets and most advanced experts.

As you have just seen, this is false. As http://www.mastercard.com is/was inaccessible. US government striking down of wikileaks caused it to become stronger than you ever imagined, by causing multiple individuals and entities to mirror the site.

Little people lose their power.

The appropriate and effective way to use our power would be to organize support for candidates who will change the government's information management policy to whatever we feel is appropriate.

You pretend to be an advocate of the "little people" while in fact you're advocating that the "little people" only engage themselves on those playing fields, where the "big people" have the clear advantage (bigger budgets, bigger media presence).

And if that doesn't work, if people don't vote for our program and candidates, grow up and be adults, and recognize that in a democracy nobody gets their way all the time.

Or perhaps those you support should grow up and recognize that they can't stop the signal.

I support a review of information policy.

Your way of going about it is self defeating. Once you convince everybody that denial of service attacks are glamorous and glorious, you can kiss your power goodbye.

I haven't convinced anybody of that, nor do I try to. They are however an effective pressure tool that can be used by "little people" against "big people", but not vice versa, while most other tools only work the other way round.

Actually, on second thought...

Given the quality of content on most of the Net, maybe clogging it up and shutting it down is not such a bad plan.

I got deeply involved in the Net starting in 1995. At the time, like a lot of people, I suffered from the fantasy that the Net would become an island of intelligence.

This fantasy was somewhat understandable, given that this had been true up until that time. Before the Net was made accessible to the broad public, typically one had to have an intelligent job to access the net, thus the overall level of content was higher than average.

Of course that has all changed, and now the Net is not really much different than TV. Do we really need another flavor of TV? Probably not.

Ok, hit my DSL provider with a denial of service attack, I'm ready.

Why would I want to?
You are a useful tool for discrediting the establishment's position.

[Typist]

That would indeed suck. But has this happened so far? MasterCard and PayPal have acted irresponsibly by simply believing the US State Department's claim that they were facilitating illegal activities, which the US Justice Department hasn't confirmed.

Mastercard and Paypal are businesses which have a right to do business with whomever they choose. I tend to agree both companies suck big time, but denial of service is not the way to respond to that.

Not doing business with these companies is the way to go. If the protest was limited to people cutting up their credit cards, it would have my respect.

The Net becomes inaccessible to everybody, except maybe the big corps and governments who have the biggest budgets and most advanced experts.

US government attacks on wikileaks actually caused it to grow stronger, causing multiple individuals and entities to mirror the site.

All of which can be hit by attacks of various kinds. The Net is like any other corner of civilization, it depends on most people acting in a civil manner. Once everybody pulls out their guns and starts shooting it out, the guys with the biggest guns win.

Guess what?

That's not you.

You pretend to be an advocate of the "little people" while in fact you're advocating that the "little people" only engage themselves on those playing fields, where the "big people" have the clear advantage (bigger budgets, bigger media presence).

I'm an advocate of civilization. The little guy has no chance whatsoever in an environment of chaos.

You have a very naive view that you can control and limit the chaos to only the targets of your choice.

Once you have sold the concept "if you disagree with somebody, shut them down" to enough people, you have pulled the rug out from under your own power.

Or perhaps those you support should grow up and recognize that they can't stop the signal.

Without the support of governments all over the world, the Internet is over. The power the U.S. government has that you don't recognize is that every government in the world now understands they could be next.

I haven't convinced anybody of that, nor do I try to. They are however an effective pressure tool that can be used by "little people" against "big people", but not vice versa, while most other tools only work the other way round.

Perhaps you've heard of another tool little people have, legal democracy? Oh, whoops, I forgot, you're too lazy. Ok, that won't work, my bad.

[i blame blame]

That would indeed suck. But has this happened so far? MasterCard and PayPal have acted irresponsibly by simply believing the US State Department's claim that they were facilitating illegal activities, which the US Justice Department hasn't confirmed.

Mastercard and Paypal are businesses which have a right to do business with whomever they choose. I tend to agree both companies suck big time, but denial of service is not the way to respond to that.

Not doing business with these companies is the way to go. If the protest was limited to people cutting up their credit cards, it would have my respect.

It is more important for the wikileaks supporters to succeed than to have your respect:

http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/ ... aks-funds/

Moron that story later.

[Typist]

It is more important for the wikileaks supporters to succeed than to have your respect:

Political Fact Of Life: You're not going to succeed unless you win the respect of people in the middle.

People like me would support a thorough review of the information classification system. Except that now you've negatively branded the cause with vigilante digital violence. You've placed an obstacle in the path we would have take to agree with you.

This is an old story. After the election victories of President Bush, people of your persuasion would fill their blogs with insults to those who voted for Bush, calling them imbeciles etc. Insulting those who you need to persuade in order to win. Smart?

What events like these teach us is that people of your persuasion aren't actually serious about public policy. You're just addicted to a phony moral superiority pose, an agenda which offers nothing to us. This is why you always lose.

Evidence: You finally got rid of Bush, and replaced him with your guy. And what did you get? More of Bush's policies, now being managed by a liberal democrat.

Case In Point: Obama has just approved an extension of Bush tax cuts for the super rich.

Moral Of The Story: People on your side sometimes have good points, but you're politically incompetent, which is why you're always in the glorious minority.

[i blame blame]

All of which can be hit by attacks of various kinds. The Net is like any other corner of civilization, it depends on most people acting in a civil manner. Once everybody pulls out their guns and starts shooting it out, the guys with the biggest guns win.

Guess what?

That's not you.

You're still not getting it, are ya. For every server that get's blocked, ten more will be set up. The net seems to be working with loads of people not acting in a civil manner. Just look at youtube comments, or comments and forum posts pretty much everywhere. It's governments and some corporations who ain't acting in a civil manner! And guess what, sites like the Pirate Bay and Wikileaks have had hundreds of attacks from various governments and are still up.

I'm an advocate of civilization. The little guy has no chance whatsoever in an environment of chaos.

Civil disobedience is called that, in part because those who cause it are part of civilization and indeed want to uphold it against threats such as corrupt elites.

You have a very naive view that you can control and limit the chaos to only the targets of your choice.

You have a naive view that governments can still just switch off sources of information they don't like.

Once you have sold the concept "if you disagree with somebody, shut them down" to enough people, you have pulled the rug out from under your own power.

What do you mean by shut them down? DDoS attacks are the cyberspace equivalent of picketing, which is an aspect of civil disobedience. No one gets "shut down".

Without the support of governments all over the world, the Internet is over.

The government very much depends on large corporations who now depend on the internet. They wouldn't they cut their own limbs off.

The power the U.S. government has that you don't recognize is that every government in the world now understands they could be next.

What do you mean?

Perhaps you've heard of another tool little people have, legal democracy? Oh, whoops, I forgot, you're too lazy. Ok, that won't work, my bad.

Nice try. Representative parliamentary democracy dilutes the will of the people with the interests of various lobbdy groups with financial backing. Also, I do use the tools of "legal democracy" as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_International

Political Fact Of Life: You're not going to succeed unless you win the respect of people in the middle.

That may be, but an actual fact of life is this: PayPal released the monies on the wikileaks donation account it illegally froze. Of course there's no evidence the DDoS attacks accelerated this process which would've happened eventually because PayPal ain't legally allowed to do that.
Amazon and PayPal have lost many a customer in the last few days.

People like me would support a thorough review of the information classification system. Except that now you've negatively branded the cause with vigilante digital violence. You've placed an obstacle in the path we would have take to agree with you.

Digital "violence"? Are you kidding me? Who was injured? Why does activists DDoSing websites who oppose wikileaks be an obstacle for you to review the information classification system? How are the two related? Are you sure you're not just looking for excuses to keep the status quo and you were never genuinely interested in altering the system?

This is an old story. After the election victories of President Bush, people of your persuasion would fill their blogs with insults to those who voted for Bush, calling them imbeciles etc. Insulting those who you need to persuade in order to win. Smart?

Was it their intention to persuade them though? It's not my intention to persuade you, as I'm pretty sure by now that you you're immune to reason. I want to unravel and outline your wrongness.

What events like these teach us is that people of your persuasion aren't actually serious about public policy. You're just addicted to a phony moral superiority pose, an agenda which offers nothing to us.

I bow to your genius. Your repeated, baseless assertion has perfectly analyzed me from a few lines of text. Except I donate to wikileaks and other non-profit organizations.

This is why you always lose.

You sure you don't want history be the judge of that?

Evidence: You finally got rid of Bush, and replaced him with your guy. And what did you get? More of Bush's policies, now being managed by a liberal democrat.

Case In Point: Obama has just approved an extension of Bush tax cuts for the super rich.

Wrong again. I never considered Obama to be "my guy", knew the Obamania was just a bunch of hot air, that American policy is mainly determined by those who have the monies and that Obama was just a nicer human face of an evil monster.

Moral Of The Story: People on your side sometimes have good points, but you're politically incompetent, which is why you're always in the glorious minority.

If political incompetence means not being a backstabbing assmunch, then yes.

Do you have any evidence that those in favor of freedom of information are a minority compared to its opponents?

[John]

Mastercard and Paypal are businesses which have a right to do business with whomever they choose.

Indeed they are and isn't it heartening to know that Mastercard, Visa and American Express will all happily accept payments for the Ku Klux Klan.

[Typist]

You're still not getting it, are ya. For every server that get's blocked, ten more will be set up.

The process of finding every server with Wikileaks data, and launching an attack on that server can be fully automated. Thus, it doesn't matter if you have dozens, hundreds or thousands of mirror sites. It's all the same to a tireless bot. And as you would correctly add, counter attacks can be automated as well. So where does that leave us?

You want to go to war.

Ok, as a person of logic I'm sure you'll agree that before going to war it would be logical to first understand who one's allies and enemy's would be. Right?

Ok, let's find out who your allies in this war will be.

Please provide us with a list of every government, corporation and individual who wants to see their private data published on Wikileaks or similar sites.

Please provide us with a list of everybody who wants to see the Net brought to it's knees in a global denial of service war.

The entities on these lists will be your allies in the information war you wish to launch.

Do Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc or any of the big hosts or net connection providers want to see their private data splashed across the web? Does any government want to be a victim?

Probably not, so you can count on all the big players all across the globe, those with the majority of talent and resources, becoming your enemy.

And I remind you, these governments and corporations whose private info you wish to "liberate" have control over the physical infrastructure of the Net.

All the Wikileaks supporters have are individual computers, which are worthless unless connected to the Net, which you don't control.

Wait, this is just the beginning of your problems.

Your enthusiasm arises from a notion that this process of stealing private information property and splashing it across the web can be limited to those you don't like. You think you've discovered a new weapon that nobody else will have.

Once the public understands that everybody will be vulnerable in the age of chaos you are offering us, they will turn on the movement you support. Once their own data is stolen and published, and the data of organizations they support, they will turn to governments, and demand a solution.

The choice we have online is the same choice we've always had offline. Rule of law, or chaos.

You're not going to be able to sell the public on chaos, because a lawful and peaceful alternative is available to anybody who is serious. Change laws you don't like by a legal process.

If you can't change the law legally, it's because most people don't agree with you.

Nobody wants all information to be public. You're fighting a lost cause, and if you weren't consumed by the usual leftist need for a moral superiority pose, you'd see that.

[John]

if you weren't consumed by the usual leftist need for a moral superiority pose, you'd see that.

Why do you always push that "moral superiority" line as though its a useful argument in the debate? You seem to do it almost every time you argue with someone and accuse them of leftist leaning. It's just silly because we know that there's just as much posturing about moral superiority on the right. In fact, your country was dominated for quite some time by the Christian right and you're not going say they didn't claim a moral superiority are you? But...

...apart from that I find myself in a tricky situation as far as the whole Wikileaks things goes. I do believe that a lot of information that's being kept secret should be made public, and I certainly don't trust governments to be the best judges of all all that should be in the public domain. On the other hand I do actually believe that governments should be able to conduct diplomacy without every detail being made public.

Now, whether national security has been threatened by any of the leaks is another matter, and I tend to think that it hasn't in any serious way but I do think that we have a bit of a problem in that government has a vested interest in not publishing a lot of information that we should legitimately have access to but on the other hand indiscriminately publishing any information you mange to come across doesn't seem to be the appropriate way forward.

I'm not specifically saying Wikileaks is right or wrong here, but I am saying that principal that all government information should be published indiscriminately doesn't seem very wise. Whether Wikileaks is or isn't doing that is maybe a point of debate.

Personally I couldn't see why there was a need to publish the list of facilities of national interest to America but I didn't really pay that much attention to that particular leak so I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks it was of value and why.

[chaz wyman]

You're still not getting it, are ya. For every server that get's blocked, ten more will be set up.

The process of finding every server with Wikileaks data, and launching an attack on that server can be fully automated. Thus, it doesn't matter if you have dozens, hundreds or thousands of mirror sites. It's all the same to a tireless bot. And as you would correctly add, counter attacks can be automated as well. So where does that leave us?

It leave us with you closing your eyes to the truth..
And allowing your government to pass information about you, and things that concern you, to 3 million government officers world wide, whilst not allowing YOU to see it.
Because that is why wikileaks has managed to find this stuff - it was all an open secrete because 3 million alrady had access to it.


Classified By: AMBASSADOR CHARLES A. FORD FOR REASONS 1.4 (b and d)

¶1. (S) Summary: Honduran President Jose Manuel &Mel8 Zelaya Rosales is a throwback to an earlier Central American era, almost a caricature of a land-owner &caudillo8 in terms of his leadership style and tone. Ever the rebellious teenager, Zelaya,s principal goal in office is to enrich himself and his family while leaving a public legacy as a martyr who tried to do good but was thwarted at every turn by powerful, unnamed interests. Various public statements over his tenure suggest he would be quite comfortable as a martyr who tried but failed honorably in his attempt to seek out social justice for the poor. He is comfortable working with the Armed Forces and until recently with the Catholic Church, yet resents the very existence of the Congress, the Attorney General and Supreme Court. Over his two and a half years in office, he has become increasingly surrounded by those involved in organized crime activities. End Summary.

¶2. (S) I have gotten to know Mel Zelaya quite well over my tenure as Ambassador, and offer these personal reflections on his character, his views of the United States, and on what his presidency means for our interest in the region with the objective of informing future policy choices.

¶3. (S) Personally, I have found Zelaya to be gracious and charming, quite willing to tell me whatever he thinks I want to hear at that moment. For example, in the period June-August 2007, we must have met weekly, with his agenda focused on explaining his nomination of Jorge Arturo Reina (who lost his U.S. visa for past terrorist connections) as the UN Ambassador, his presence in Managua at Sandinista celebrations and his intentions with regard to Hugo Chavez. It was interesting to see how his explanations differed from meeting to meeting, almost as if he had no recollection of our exchange just a few days before.

¶4. (S) In the period May-June 2006, Zelaya pressed me hard to obtain President Bush,s approval of his plan to join PetroCaribe. When he met in early June with President Bush who confirmed our strong opposition to his intention, Zelaya later told me that he was surprised that this item had been on our agenda. In short, over an almost three year period it has become crystal clear to me that Zelaya,s views change by the day or in some cases by the hour, depending on his mood and who he has seen last.

5.(S) Not surprisingly, Zelaya has no real friends outside of his family, as he ridicules publicly those closest to him. In the days preceding his inauguration, Zelaya without prior notification canceled a country team briefing for his new cabinet. Over a private lunch he explained that he trusted no one in his government and asked me the question: &Who is the most powerful; the person with a knife behind the door or the person outside the door who knows there is someone behind the door with a knife?8 It is clear to me that tactically he will work with almost anyone, but strategically he stands alone.

¶6. (S) Zelaya also has been quite erratic in his behavior. Despite his often harsh public rhetoric, such as describing U.S. immigration policy against illegal aliens as "persecution" by "fascists", Zelaya would meet again with President Bush in a heartbeat. At one point he even planned to go uninvited to a bilateral Bush-Berger meeting in Guatemala. Zelaya not only allowed the first visit of a U.S. warship to mainland Honduras in 22 years, but he delivered a TEGUCIGALP 00000459 002 OF 004 ringing speech extolling bilateral relations on the ship's deck, only briefly expressing pride in Honduras' capture and execution of the American interventionist William Walker. Always suspicious of American intentions, he inexplicably submitted to a psychological profile at my Residence - twice. His erratic behavior appears most evident when he deliberately stirs street action in protest against his own government policy - only to resolve the issue (teacher complaints, transportation grievances, etc) at the last moment. This approach to problem solving seems to be Zelaya's way of gaining acceptance, challenging the established political power structure, and moving his agenda - which is not populist or ideological, but is based on popular appeal.

¶7. (S) Zelaya remains very much a rebellious teenager, anxious to show his lack of respect for authority figures. Cardinal Andres Rodriguez has told me that not only did he not graduate from university but he actually did not graduate from high school. The Cardinal should know, as he was one of his teachers. The problem is that Mel has acted in this juvenile, rebellious manner his entire life and succeeded in reaching the highest office in the land. No need to change now. He will continue to lead a chaotic, highly disorganized private life.

¶8. (S) There also exists a sinister Zelaya, surrounded by a few close advisors with ties to both Venezuela and Cuba and organized crime. Zelaya's desperate defense of former telecommunications chief Marcelo Chimirri (widely believed to be a murderer, rapist and thief) suggests that Chimirri holds much over Zelaya himself. Zelaya almost assuredly takes strong medication for a severe back problem and perhaps other drugs as well. His vehement attacks on the press have reportedly endangered journalists opposed to Zelaya's policies. His style and tone in order to get his way is one of intimidation and bullying, threatening tax inspections and worse rather than substantive debate on issues. Zelaya's inability to name a Vice Minister for Security lends credibility to those who suggest that narco traffickers have pressured him to name one of their own to this position. Due to his close association with persons believed to be involved with international organized crime, the motivation behind many of his policy decisions can certainly be questioned. I am unable to brief Zelaya on sensitive law enforcement and counter-narcotics actions due my concern that this would put the lives of U.S. officials in jeopardy.

¶9. (S) Finally, Mel is very much a son of Olancho, aware of his roots in the land and his family's ties to Honduras since the 1500,s. Unlike most other Honduran leaders in recent times, Zelaya,s view of a trip to the &big city8 means Tegucigalpa and not Miami or New Orleans. While he and his family have been part of the Honduran landscape for 400 years, they have not until recently inter-married with the Honduras elite in Tegucigalpa or San Pedro Sula. His son's marriage in 2006 to one of the country's leading Honduran-Arab families was very important to Zelaya yet a complex event, signifying acceptance into the very elite group that he so very much resents.

¶10. (S) I have found Zelaya,s real views of the United States hidden not too very deeply below the surface. In a word, he is not a friend. His views are shaped not by ideology or personal ambitions but by an old-fashioned nationalism where he holds the United States accountable for Honduras, current state of poverty and dependency. Zelaya,s public position against the Contra War and against the establishment of Joint Task Force Bravo at Soto Cano Air TEGUCIGALP 00000459 003 OF 004 Force Base are manifestations of this underlying viewpoint.

¶11. (S) Other behavior by the President confirms, in my view, the depth of his feeling. While Zelaya was open to our point of view of the selection of key members of his Cabinet, he was absolutely closed to listening to us on his appointment of his Ambassador to the OAS and to his appointment of Jorge Arturo Reina as Ambassador to the UN. The Honduran voting record in the UN in terms of coincidence with US positions is at the lowest point in decades.

¶12. (S) More revealing, at public events with key officials present, Zelaya will make clear that anyone interested in becoming President of the country needs first to get the blessing of the American Ambassador. Personally, in private conversations at the Residence, Zelaya has recounted to me, multiple times how a previous American Ambassador had ordered the President of the Honduran Congress to accept the Presidential candidacy of Ricardo Maduro, even though in Zelaya,s view Maduro was Panamanian-born and thus ineligible. Other sources have documented Zelaya,s views on this point where his anger and resentment are more apparent than in his exchanges with me. It is clear by the way he recounts the story that on one level he resents very much this perceived dependency yet accepts it exists and looks to me to define for him the rules of the game. He becomes frustrated at times when he believes I am not carrying out this responsibility.

¶13. (S) Most noticeable to me has been his avoidance of public meetings with visiting US officials. Whether Cabinet officials or CODELs, Zelaya always is a gracious host, but never comes out of the meeting to have his picture taken publicly with our visitors, as he is so anxious to do with other visitors from Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Almost all of our meetings take place at my Residence rather than at the more public setting of the Presidential Palace. He made no attempt to disseminate his may photo ops with President Bush after the June 2006 meeting in Washington. The fact is that the President of the country prefers to meet quite often in the privacy of my Residence but not to be seen in public with American visitors.

¶14. (S) Finally, Zelaya recently is fond of saying that we need to improve our communication, which I interpret to mean that we need to agree with him more often. A similar fate has befallen Cardinal Rodriguez who used to meet, as I do, regularly with the President. As the Cardinal in recent months has found himself in disagreement with Zelaya and is not participating publicly in his projects, Zelaya is working increasingly with pastors in the evangelical community. The Cardinal recently told me that he and the President hardly speak now as the President is unhappy that he doesn't agree with the direction Zelaya is taking the country. For Zelaya, communicating means agreeing unquestionably with his point of view.

¶15. (S) GOING FORWARD: The last year and a half of the Zelaya Administration will be, in my view, extraordinarily difficult for our bilateral relationship. His pursuit of immunity from the numerous activities of organized crime carried out in his Administration will cause him to threaten the rule of law and institutional stability. Honduran institutions and friendly governments will need to be prepared to act privately and in public to help move Honduras forward.

¶16. (S) We will need, in my view, to continue to engage Zelaya whenever we can in order to minimize damage and to TEGUCIGALP 00000459 004 OF 004 protect our core interests. As a rebellious teenager, he will need a significant space to move, in but we must be very direct in our conversations with him as to our core interests. Despite his feelings towards us, he does respect the role the U.S. Embassy is still perceived to play in Honduran society and will expect us in private to be direct and clear in our views. Using an analogy from American football, we will need to continue to carry out an aggressive bend but not break defensive game plan in the run up to the next elections in November 2009. In this way, I believe we can engage Zelaya intensely in the hope of so as to minimizing damage to Honduran democracy and the economy

You want to go to war.

Ok, as a person of logic I'm sure you'll agree that before going to war it would be logical to first understand who one's allies and enemy's would be. Right?

Ok, let's find out who your allies in this war will be.

Please provide us with a list of every government, corporation and individual who wants to see their private data published on Wikileaks or similar sites.

Please provide us with a list of everybody who wants to see the Net brought to it's knees in a global denial of service war.

The entities on these lists will be your allies in the information war you wish to launch.

Do Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc or any of the big hosts or net connection providers want to see their private data splashed across the web? Does any government want to be a victim?

Probably not, so you can count on all the big players all across the globe, those with the majority of talent and resources, becoming your enemy.

And I remind you, these governments and corporations whose private info you wish to "liberate" have control over the physical infrastructure of the Net.

All the Wikileaks supporters have are individual computers, which are worthless unless connected to the Net, which you don't control.

Wait, this is just the beginning of your problems.

Your enthusiasm arises from a notion that this process of stealing private information property and splashing it across the web can be limited to those you don't like. You think you've discovered a new weapon that nobody else will have.

Once the public understands that everybody will be vulnerable in the age of chaos you are offering us, they will turn on the movement you support. Once their own data is stolen and published, and the data of organizations they support, they will turn to governments, and demand a solution.

The choice we have online is the same choice we've always had offline. Rule of law, or chaos.

You're not going to be able to sell the public on chaos, because a lawful and peaceful alternative is available to anybody who is serious. Change laws you don't like by a legal process.

If you can't change the law legally, it's because most people don't agree with you.

Nobody wants all information to be public. You're fighting a lost cause, and if you weren't consumed by the usual leftist need for a moral superiority pose, you'd see that.

[chaz wyman]

The recent leeks were available to 3 million person in the security services, government offices, police and ambassadorial staff in many countries following the 'war on terror'. The information in these leeks, therefore was never secret, but what is termed an 'open secret'. This is how it was so easy to get hold of an a second hand GAGA CD.
Why would any one want to restrict this stuff to some whilst denying it to others?
If there is some information in these leeks that might be dangerous to anyone's future then it is clear that it should not have existed in ANY database - especially not one open to 3 million whilst denied to those in danger.
Given that this information was so widely available then any terrorist would have been quite easily able to get hold of it.
In this case it is of vital importance that anyone in danger due to to whom or where they work need to know this information as well as million and any terrorist who probably has managed to get hold of it long before wiki did.

So if you work for a company whose activities might make them a terrorist target then you need to know that, so that you can make an informed decision about your future.

3 Cheers for wiki leeks.

The real criminals are those that thought this stuff would ever be kept secret and it is disgusting to scape-goat Mr Assange, who has basically done them a favour in showing them how fucking lax they have been.