A new superpower

[John]

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.

We know they don't do that though. Look at the disgraceful treatment of Gary McKinnon who highlighted the fact that the US military has a woefully lax attitude to patching servers and changing default passwords. Ok, McKinnon shouldn't have been doing what he was doing but it does highlight how easy it would have been for someone with a more sinister agenda to gain access. They're lucky it was just a UFO nut that got in first.

[i blame blame]

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?

Right. How effective have your masters' attacks against wikileaks been so far to shut it up?

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.

None. I never claimed any government or corporation wanted their "private" data published. Some, very few governments have applauded wikileaks action though and others have responded more or less neutrally to the diplomatic leak. Companies would also very much like to see corruptions of their competition exposed.

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.

None. Nobody is advocating one.

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

False. I have no uinterest in the net being "brought to its knees".

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?

Nope. Has their data been splashed across the net? Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc. dont control the internet.

Does any government want to be a victim?

Nope.

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.

Evidence suggests that they don't have enough talent and resources. There are 1.297.115 facebook users out of 500 million who "like" wikileaks. If we extrapolate this to the total number of people with internet access, it's probably 4 million.
Moron that story later.

[Typist]

Right. How effective have your masters' attacks against wikileaks been so far to shut it up?

Unlike your master, my master has been showing some restraint. But, um, Mr. Assange is in jail now, isn't he?

None. I never claimed any government or corporation wanted their "private" data published.

Right, thus every government and corporation will be against you.

Some, very few governments have applauded wikileaks action though...

Right, because like you, they think this will be limited to people they don't like. Their attitude will change the moment their private data appears online.

Companies would also very much like to see corruptions of their competition exposed.

And once this kind of war gets going, you can kiss the freedom of the Net goodbye.

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.

None. Nobody is advocating one.

That's exactly what you're advocating when you applaud attacks on websites you don't like.

Nope. Has their data been splashed across the net? Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc. don't control the internet.

Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc are far smarter and better resourced than your merry little band of fascist activists. You think you can fight every power in the world and win, and you are wrong.

Evidence suggests that they don't have enough talent and resources. There are 1.297.115 facebook users out of 500 million who "like" wikileaks. If we extrapolate this to the total number of people with internet access, it's probably 4 million. Moron that story later.

Yes, they have Internet access. You keep forgetting who actually controls that access. Yes, that's right, the government and corporations you are intent on going to war with.

[chaz wyman]

Right. How effective have your masters' attacks against wikileaks been so far to shut it up?

Unlike your master, my master has been showing some restraint. But, um, Mr. Assange is in jail now, isn't he?


Do you think it is possible that the 'sex crime' charges against him are bogus? Do you realise that he willingly walked into a police station to clear his name? Is this the act of a guilty man? Do you not think that these charges coming at the time they do are likely to be kosher?

None. I never claimed any government or corporation wanted their "private" data published.

Right, thus every government and corporation will be against you.

Some, very few governments have applauded wikileaks action though...

Right, because like you, they think this will be limited to people they don't like. Their attitude will change the moment their private data appears online.

Companies would also very much like to see corruptions of their competition exposed.

And once this kind of war gets going, you can kiss the freedom of the Net goodbye.

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.

None. Nobody is advocating one.

That's exactly what you're advocating when you applaud attacks on websites you don't like.

Nope. Has their data been splashed across the net? Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc. don't control the internet.

Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc are far smarter and better resourced than your merry little band of fascist activists. You think you can fight every power in the world and win, and you are wrong.

I think you have got the word fascist conflated. Surely it is Microsoft that is the fascist here?

Evidence suggests that they don't have enough talent and resources. There are 1.297.115 facebook users out of 500 million who "like" wikileaks. If we extrapolate this to the total number of people with internet access, it's probably 4 million. Moron that story later.

Yes, they have Internet access. You keep forgetting who actually controls that access. Yes, that's right, the government and corporations you are intent on going to war with.

[i blame blame]

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.

Nope. An acquaintance of mine - who is kind of a genius - single-handedly cracked Sony's digital restriction management OpenMG. A few good nerds can bring down a shitstorm on any interweb "war machine".

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

False. Tho root name servers, which are not operated by U.S. government agencies are run by VeriSign, the University of Southern California, Cogent Communications, the University of Maryland, the Internet Systems Consortium, Netnod Internet Exchange i Sverige, Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre, ICANN and the Widely Integrated Distributed Environment Project.

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

Wrong. With monies from donations, Wikileaks can hire data centers, which it does. Your lords don't control it either, a concept those morons still haven't grasped.

Wait, this is just the beginning of your problems.

You've not informed me of any 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.

False. This information is not private, it was assembled by a government.
For the nth time, you still haven't quoted a single legal expert who stated that a theft has indeed occurred.

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.

Again, it's the governments who are mining data on private citizens, not wikileaks supporters.

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

Nope. It's corruption, hyporcrisy, oppression or transparency and accountability.

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.

It may not be illegal in all cuntries to DDoS foreign servers. The US government exerts pressure on most governments and ohter organizations in the world. How can citizens of other cuntries possibly use a legal process to change US laws?

I'm not actually familiar with the legality of DDoS in many cuntries. In Germany, the Netherlands and the UK it's illegal. In the UK, the mere download of LOIC can cause up to 2 years in prison, which almost makes them as democratic as North Korea. I don't know whether it's illegal to DDoS foreign servers in above cuntries though. If you have any additional information on the legality of DDoS in various cuntries and on the international arena, please provide evidence. Pardon me for not simply taking your word for it, as you have proven yourself time and time again to be full of shit.

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

In a direct democracy, this would be the case. In a parliamentary one, which is ripe with corruption, it usually ain't.

Nobody wants all information to be public.

Nobody's arguing that.

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.

Don't you ever get tired of your multi-cyclical coprophagia?

Unlike your master, my master has been showing some restraint. But, um, Mr. Assange is in jail now, isn't he?

Restrain't like calling out for the execution "for treason" of Assange?
Funny, didn't you say logic was my "god" a few threads back? So which is it?

Right, thus every government and corporation will be against you.

False. As you have seen, this is wrong, as some governments have reacted neutrally and others in support. Please show evidence, that companies other than MasterCard, PayPal, amazon, EveryDNS, or most banks are against wikileaks.

Right, because like you, they think this will be limited to people they don't like. Their attitude will change the moment their private data appears online.

Please get back to me when that happens. Pipe down before that.

And once this kind of war gets going, you can kiss the freedom of the Net goodbye.

Explain how.

That's exactly what you're advocating when you applaud attacks on websites you don't like.

That's not what I'm doing. I applaud pressuring sites to counter pressure they receive from governments as well as pressuring them if they act illegally, with the blessing of governments.

Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sun etc are far smarter and better resourced than your merry little band of fascist activists.

Fascists because they don't agree with the censorship of your assmasters? They haven't targeted those companies. And, as I said, you vastly underestimate freelance geeks.

You think you can fight every power in the world and win, and you are wrong.

I don't think that, nor did I ever claim to.

Yes, they have Internet access. You keep forgetting who actually controls that access. Yes, that's right, the government and corporations you are intent on going to war with.

False. ISPs, universities and ultimatey the US government foundations and corporations who run root name servers. I am only "intent to go to war with" a fraction of them. Furthermore, P2P technology is being developed to decentralize the web even more.

[Typist]

And, as I said, you vastly underestimate freelance geeks.

The difference between us Blame, is that I actually am a geek. You're just repeating slogans you've memorized out of glorious propaganda pamphlets.

Yes, they have Internet access. You keep forgetting who actually controls that access. Yes, that's right, the government and corporations you are intent on going to war with.

False. ISPs, universities and ultimatey the US government foundations and corporations who run root name servers. I am only "intent to go to war with" a fraction of them.

You don't grasp how Wikileaks is different than a classic limited leak, and how that difference will unite ISPs, universities, governments, corporations, etc and all other power centers against your cause.

The classic leak is the release of a specific document to make some specific point. Because this kind of release is very limited, everybody not directly involved assumes "this isn't about me". If they agree with the point being made, they may support the leak.

Wikileaks is a mass data dump of any classified data they can get their hands on. Wikileaks is attempting to undermine the concept of information ownership.

This revolutionary nature of this proposal is at the heart of the appeal for ignorant young people like yourself. The proposal will only appeal to people who are too young or too stupid to have any valuable private data.

The Wikileaks proposal will be rejected and resisted by everybody else, everybody who is intelligent enough to have valuable private data.

You may not have the intent to go to war with all these people but I assure you, they will be intent to go to war with you, once it becomes clear that if this fad spreads their own data will not be safe.

Furthermore, P2P technology is being developed to decentralize the web even more.

Until you control the transmission lines that connect the peers, until you own the net itself, you're not prepared to go to war with those who do.

[i blame blame]

The difference between us Blame, is that I actually am a geek.

I've never claimed that all geeks are "good guys" or intelligent.

You're just repeating slogans you've memorized out of glorious propaganda pamphlets.

Which of my sentences were slogans from which propaganda pamphlets?

You don't grasp how Wikileaks is different than a classic limited leak, and how that difference will unite ISPs, universities, governments, corporations, etc and all other power centers against your cause.

Then please enlighten me how.

The classic leak is the release of a specific document to make some specific point. Because this kind of release is very limited, everybody not directly involved assumes "this isn't about me". If they agree with the point being made, they may support the leak.

Wikileaks is a mass data dump of any classified data they can get their hands on.

Correct. It's a platform on which classic leaks can be published anonymously.

Wikileaks is attempting to undermine the concept of information ownership.

Nope. It's attempting, and succeeding, to allow whistleblowers to blow whistles.

This revolutionary nature of this proposal is at the heart of the appeal for ignorant young people like yourself. The proposal will only appeal to people who are too young or too stupid to have any valuable private data.

You call me ignorant and yet you have not posted evidence for a single one of your claims. Once again, I do value private data, which is what most governments are undermining.

The Wikileaks proposal will be rejected and resisted by everybody else, everybody who is intelligent enough to have valuable private data.

False, because intelligent people can distinguish between personal private data and information on crimes that governments attempt to conceal.

You may not have the intent to go to war with all these people but I assure you, they will be intent to go to war with you, once it becomes clear that if this fad spreads their own data will not be safe.

Why would you expect that anyone gives any credibility to the "assurances" you pull outta your ass?

Until you control the transmission lines that connect the peers, until you own the net itself, you're not prepared to go to war with those who do.

The transmission lines are controlled by ISPs. If shit hits the fan and all of them also somehow effectively turn against free expression, then the peer to peer network will use spacetime as its medium of propagation.

[Typist]

You don't grasp how Wikileaks is different than a classic limited leak, and how that difference will unite ISPs, universities, governments, corporations, etc and all other power centers against your cause.

Then please enlighten me how.

Duh, nobody with valuable private data wants it splashed across the Net. Given that this is the principle you are supporting, you will find yourself in conflict with everybody who has valuable private data.

Wikileaks is a mass data dump of any classified data they can get their hands on.

Correct. It's a platform on which classic leaks can be published anonymously.

Ok, good, we are making progress.

QUESTION: So, now please ask yourself, who will resist a service that facilitates mass data dumps of valuable private information.

ANSWER: Anybody with valuable private information.

Wikileaks is attempting to undermine the concept of information ownership.

Nope. It's attempting, and succeeding, to allow whistleblowers to blow whistles.

If it's easy for "whistleblowers" to mass data dump private info anonymously, nobody will have ownership of information.

You call me ignorant and yet you have not posted evidence for a single one of your claims. Once again, I do value private data, which is what most governments are undermining.

I call you ignorant, because you don't value private data, and don't even know it. Your own posts are my evidence.

The information in question is the private property of the citizens of the United States, and you can't wait to make it all public. Therefore, you don't value private data.

False, because intelligent people can distinguish between personal private data and information on crimes that governments attempt to conceal.

False, because intelligent people will see that if Wikileaks is allowed to proper, then this mass data dump leak process will spread to every debate on every subject.

It could be interesting if you wish to follow the logic of your activism to it's logical conclusion, and make the case that all information should be public.

If we could start with the premise that this would be accomplished by vote, and not by unilateral action, it could be an interesting discussion. Otherwise, it's just fascism.

[Typist]

The transmission lines are controlled by ISPs.

Do ISPs want their private data splashed across the Net? Do they want to be involved in a DDOS war?

If shit hits the fan and all of them also somehow effectively turn against free expression, then the peer to peer network will use spacetime as its medium of propagation.

Thank you for this journey in to science fiction.

[i blame blame]

Duh, nobody with valuable private data wants it splashed across the Net. Given that this is the principle you are supporting, you will find yourself in conflict with everybody who has valuable private data.

When did I claim to support this principle? I support misdeeds (such as the US spying on the UN or having spies within foreign political parties, which was revealed in the diplomatic cable leak) and other matters of public interest being exposed.

Ok, good, we are making progress.

We? I've not seen you make any progress.

QUESTION: So, now please ask yourself, who will resist a service that facilitates mass data dumps of valuable private information.

None of the information revealed of wikileaks was private. It was confidential or secret, within exclusive groups, but never private. Groups who engage in crime will naturally want to resist it, as might businesses who have secret manufacturing processes. However, so far, no such industrial leak has occurred on wikileaks. And I don't think that's what they stand for.

ANSWER: Anybody with valuable private information.

Indeed, but you're arguing against a straw man.

If it's easy for "whistleblowers" to mass data dump private info anonymously, nobody will have ownership of information.

It ain't exactly easy.

I call you ignorant, because you don't value private data, and don't even know it. Your own posts are my evidence.

Wrong and wrong. I do value private data. I don't value information about crimes being kept secret.

The information in question is the private property of the citizens of the United States, and you can't wait to make it all public. Therefore, you don't value private data.

False. It is not private property. A house, a car, a computer, that might be private property. Your birth date, address, sexual preference, underwear colour, that's private information. Data gathered by a state is NOT private property, unless it's data gathered on a private individual, in which case it's still not the state's private data, but the individual's.

False, because intelligent people will see that if Wikileaks is allowed to proper, then this mass data dump leak process will spread to every debate on every subject.

Did you mean allowed to prosper?
False because it's good for people to be properly informed about subjects thant concern them.

It could be interesting if you wish to follow the logic of your activism to it's logical conclusion, and make the case that all information should be public.

That's not a logical conclusion.

If we could start with the premise that this would be accomplished by vote, and not by unilateral action, it could be an interesting discussion. Otherwise, it's just fascism.

But it's not "fascism" for the US government to spy on the UN and on foreign political parties? It's fascism for those parties to find out what information the US gathered on them? Do those parties or the UN get to vote on US legislation?

Do ISPs want their private data splashed across the Net? Do they want to be involved in a DDOS war?

Has their data been splashed across the net? Have they been involved in such a war?

Also, do you denounce the DDoS attacks on wikileaks as much as you denounce those on PayPal, amazon, MasterCard etc?

Thank you for this journey in to science fiction.

As surprising as it may sound, it's not science fiction. A few months ago, a phenomenon called "electromagnetic waves" was discovered. It can propagate along a medium known as "spacetime" and encapsulate information. A few weeks ago, a technology was developed on that principle. They called it "WiFi". Some recent studies suggest that ISPs and governments may have a hard time controlling the information that gets sent along "spacetime". I was a little too eager and bought a little too much of this "spacetime". I'm willing to sell you 50 m^4 of it for 50 bucks. It's a pretty good deal. Shake on it?

[chaz wyman]

And, as I said, you vastly underestimate freelance geeks.

The difference between us Blame, is that I actually am a geek. You're just repeating slogans you've memorized out of glorious propaganda pamphlets.

Yes, they have Internet access. You keep forgetting who actually controls that access. Yes, that's right, the government and corporations you are intent on going to war with.

False. ISPs, universities and ultimatey the US government foundations and corporations who run root name servers. I am only "intent to go to war with" a fraction of them.

You don't grasp how Wikileaks is different than a classic limited leak, and how that difference will unite ISPs, universities, governments, corporations, etc and all other power centers against your cause.

The classic leak is the release of a specific document to make some specific point. Because this kind of release is very limited, everybody not directly involved assumes "this isn't about me". If they agree with the point being made, they may support the leak.

Wikileaks is a mass data dump of any classified data they can get their hands on. Wikileaks is attempting to undermine the concept of information ownership.

This revolutionary nature of this proposal is at the heart of the appeal for ignorant young people like yourself. The proposal will only appeal to people who are too young or too stupid to have any valuable private data.

The Wikileaks proposal will be rejected and resisted by everybody else, everybody who is intelligent enough to have valuable private data.

You may not have the intent to go to war with all these people but I assure you, they will be intent to go to war with you, once it becomes clear that if this fad spreads their own data will not be safe.

Furthermore, P2P technology is being developed to decentralize the web even more.

Until you control the transmission lines that connect the peers, until you own the net itself, you're not prepared to go to war with those who do.

Wikileaks contains no personal data. Personal references have been redacted.
Wikileaks has not been formally accused of any crime.
You are , as usual, talking out of your arse.

[chaz wyman]

A New Superpower.
The latest disgrace goes on and on.

The US wants to gaol what some on this Forum would call a 'retard', for 60 years.
Gary Mckinnon hacked the US's most 'secure' and secret websites, without bad intent, yet this Asperger's syndrome sufferer is still fighting the stress of extradition after 6 years appeals and counter appeals.

Is it ever going to be possible for the US to show a little decorum and restraint?
Rather than trying to prosecute, they ought to have thanked him and employed him as his amateur security knowledge is far better than theirs.

[bobevenson]

The disgrace is Europe, not the USA. The European Union is the failed disgrace of the entire planet!

[i blame blame]

A New Superpower.
The latest disgrace goes on and on.

The US wants to gaol what some on this Forum would call a 'retard', for 60 years.
Gary Mckinnon hacked the US's most 'secure' and secret websites, without bad intent, yet this Asperger's syndrome sufferer is still fighting the stress of extradition after 6 years appeals and counter appeals.

Is it ever going to be possible for the US to show a little decorum and restraint?
Rather than trying to prosecute, they ought to have thanked him and employed him as his amateur security knowledge is far better than theirs.

Gary McKinnon extradition to US blocked by Theresa May
British computer hacker Gary McKinnon will not be extradited to the US, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138

Talk about Nixon going to China.

But Labour former home secretary Alan Johnson criticised the decision and claimed Mrs May had made a decision which was "in her own party's best interests but it's not in the best interests of this country".

He said: "Gary McKinnon is accused of very serious offences. The US was perfectly within its rights and it was extremely reasonable of them to seek his extradition."

So the labour party are now the spineless bitches while the tories stand up even to the US government (at times)?

Mr Ahmad was one of five terror suspects, including radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, extradited to the US earlier this month. His co-accused, Talha Ahsan, who was also extradited, was diagnosed with Asperger's in June 2009, according to a European Court of Human Rights judgement.

Both are accused by US authorities of running a pro-jihad website.

Wow, running a political website is now a capital offense?

They insisted his hacking was "intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion".

LOL, a big nasty man in the UK intimidated the innocent, little US government.

The disgrace is Europe, not the USA. The European Union is the failed disgrace of the entire planet!

Would you care to elaborate why you find this to be so?

[chaz wyman]

The disgrace is Europe, not the USA. The European Union is the failed disgrace of the entire planet!

Would you care to elaborate why you find this to be so?

Don't hold your breath whilst you wait for him to explain!

He thinks "europe" is Gary Mckinnon.