Who is attacking?

[nslay]

The news keeps mentioning DDoS attacks against wikileaks and I've read that there are attacks against PayPal now ...
Has anybody taken the time to figure out who?  Who is orchestrating these attacks from both sides?  Isn't anybody else curious? 

Screw the documents, I'm curious about the attackers.  This isn't your typical anti-Microsoft or anti-copyright case ... this is some political crap.  Who in the heck pulls off attacks like this for crap like that?

[CrAz3D]

The GOVTs of the world.  World Govts v. citizens is the situation.

[iago]

Some random guy, most likely. It only takes one person to DDoS, and there's no way it's government.

[CrAz3D]

Why?  They have made up false rape charges, and now the US govt is looking to charge Assange with anything it can think of.  Why wouldnt the govt try?  wikileaks.org is completely gone.

Informed citizens are opponents of govt.

[iago]

Because a DDoS is temporary and incomplete. In other words, a total waste of time. Additionally, a DDoS requires a large network of bot-infected machines to be effective, and it isn't that likely that the government is putting malware on people's computers.

The thing about a DDoS is that any idiot with a botnet can do one, and they often get cited as proof of Internet warfare. And that's just crap, IMO. It always ends up being some guy in his basement with too much free time on his hands.

[CrAz3D]

How would the govts of the world combat wikileaks?

Why wouldnt the CIA or some black govt entity operate like they were "regular citizens."  Create themselves some of that thar "plausible deniability."

[AntiVirus]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024966-38.html

This might answer some questions you have.

[truste1]

How would the govts of the world combat wikileaks?

Pressuring all avenues of capital infusion to disassociate with the website. Essentially the equivalent of blockading a port.

[iago]

How would the govts of the world combat wikileaks?

Pressuring all avenues of capital infusion to disassociate with the website. Essentially the equivalent of blockading a port.

Exactly. So far, they've been abandoned by their DNS providers, Paypal, Amazon, Mastercard, and many other services. Basically, the government is trying to make it impossible for the site to continue.

The favourite thing I read is how hate groups like KKK use Paypal and Mastercard without an issue, but a site that's ostensibly helping people, and that hasn't caused any harm to anybody but has made the government accountable for their actions, is being attacked from all sides.

I find it funny that this is the ultimate government transparency. The government is *supposed* to answer to the people.. finally, it does, and they hate it.

[nslay]

The government doesn't need to DDoS ... it can do much more and more effectively.  Look at China, it doesn't DDoS everyone it disagrees with ... it just controls the Internet content.  The US could do much more than China, like weigh in on registrars to turn off service for the domain names.  However, it didn't and it's also not pursuing extradition of Assange from UK. I think Assange has a chance of getting off scot-free.

Of course, CIA might not see to it.  I read that a nuclear physicist Mordechai Vanunu ran off to Italy and was lured and kidnapped by an undercover Mossad agent and returned back to Israel.  Who is to say the CIA wouldn't do something similar?

[iago]

Despite what the media says, Assange has been completely forthright dealing with the police, and hasn't been "hiding". It's not like he got raided or anything to get arrested, he voluntarily went to the police station.

And yeah, in the US he hasn't broken any laws, which is what's causing the problems. The US was founded on the same principles that Assange is supporting, and the modern government doesn't like that.

Another good quote, "Palin demands that Assange be hunted down like Al Qaeda, so he should be fine for at least 10 years"

[nslay]

How would the govts of the world combat wikileaks?

Pressuring all avenues of capital infusion to disassociate with the website. Essentially the equivalent of blockading a port.

Exactly. So far, they've been abandoned by their DNS providers, Paypal, Amazon, Mastercard, and many other services. Basically, the government is trying to make it impossible for the site to continue.

The favourite thing I read is how hate groups like KKK use Paypal and Mastercard without an issue, but a site that's ostensibly helping people, and that hasn't caused any harm to anybody but has made the government accountable for their actions, is being attacked from all sides.

I find it funny that this is the ultimate government transparency. The government is *supposed* to answer to the people.. finally, it does, and they hate it.

Did the government do that or did these providers get cold feet?  I think the latter.

[CrAz3D]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20024966-38.html

This might answer some questions you have.

ya know, maybe I _SHOULD_ just pull out all my cash, buy bullets and whiskey and go under ground. sheesh.

[iago]

How would the govts of the world combat wikileaks?

Pressuring all avenues of capital infusion to disassociate with the website. Essentially the equivalent of blockading a port.

Exactly. So far, they've been abandoned by their DNS providers, Paypal, Amazon, Mastercard, and many other services. Basically, the government is trying to make it impossible for the site to continue.

The favourite thing I read is how hate groups like KKK use Paypal and Mastercard without an issue, but a site that's ostensibly helping people, and that hasn't caused any harm to anybody but has made the government accountable for their actions, is being attacked from all sides.

I find it funny that this is the ultimate government transparency. The government is *supposed* to answer to the people.. finally, it does, and they hate it.

Did the government do that or did these providers get cold feet?  I think the latter.

I'm going to go with both. But I don't think we'll ever know..

[nslay]

How would the govts of the world combat wikileaks?

Pressuring all avenues of capital infusion to disassociate with the website. Essentially the equivalent of blockading a port.

Exactly. So far, they've been abandoned by their DNS providers, Paypal, Amazon, Mastercard, and many other services. Basically, the government is trying to make it impossible for the site to continue.

The favourite thing I read is how hate groups like KKK use Paypal and Mastercard without an issue, but a site that's ostensibly helping people, and that hasn't caused any harm to anybody but has made the government accountable for their actions, is being attacked from all sides.

I find it funny that this is the ultimate government transparency. The government is *supposed* to answer to the people.. finally, it does, and they hate it.

Did the government do that or did these providers get cold feet?  I think the latter.

I'm going to go with both. But I don't think we'll ever know..

Like I said, if the US really wanted to stop Wikileaks, I believe it really could.  I'm just not seeing any evidence that the US has done anything yet.  The US Government is probably still brainstorming possible courses of action.  If these documents really are a matter of national security, I'd imagine they'd have the authorization to take whatever action they needed under The Patriot Act and/or similar laws.

On the other hand, Paypal cites it's own acceptable use policy (the legality criteria).  However, if Wikileaks hasn't broken any laws then Paypal was wrong to close their account.  This is odd since it would be in their best interest to leave the Wikileaks account active ... especially now.  I think Paypal is just fearful of potential consequences of providing services to Wikileaks.

[CrAz3D]

Wouldnt the US pretty much have to cut off the Internet?  The wikileaks docs are everywhere, and the sites are accessible via IP and misc people just communicating.

[iago]

Like I said, if the US really wanted to stop Wikileaks, I believe it really could.  I'm just not seeing any evidence that the US has done anything yet.  The US Government is probably still brainstorming possible courses of action.  If these documents really are a matter of national security, I'd imagine they'd have the authorization to take whatever action they needed under The Patriot Act and/or similar laws.

craz3d already said this, but to sort of repeat it: how?

The is the Internet age. There are hundreds of mirrors of the wikileaks content, there's no single point of failure, and there's no way they're putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

Additionally, are you familiar with the insurance.aes256 file? It's a 1.4gb encrypted file, and is reportedly the unredacted contents of *everything*. Wikileaks has indicated that they'll release the decryption key if they reach a state where they can no longer function. That's basically blackmail (or extortion?), but does the US want to risk it?

[Sidoh]

I'm doubtful it's a government too.  If it is, it's probably not the US.  I would postulate that there's way too much bureaucracy to allow such a thing to take place.  I have no doubt that most governments have the technical capability necessary for this kind of attack, but I don't think any of them really have the balls to do it. (not that I think it'd be a good thing if they did)

I'm with iago on this one.  It's probably just some random person or small group of people that decided it'd be a good idea to take wikileaks down.  Also, that it seems a little bit stupid to do something like this.  The damage has been done... there's really no point.  I suppose it prevents them from spilling more beans?

[CrAz3D]

I would postulate that there's way too much bureaucracy to allow such a thing to take place.

I think the PATRIOT Act did away with that.  The US govt can spy on anyone at any time for any reason, why wouldnt it just go ahead and take down some website.

[Sidoh]

I would postulate that there's way too much bureaucracy to allow such a thing to take place.

I think the PATRIOT Act did away with that.  The US govt can spy on anyone at any time for any reason, why wouldnt it just go ahead and take down some website.

Maybe, to some degree.  I don't think it's as easy to jump through the hoops as you're making it seem, though.  Sure -- it's certainly possible, but I just don't think it's worth the effort to them.

[CrAz3D]

Further, like I previously suggested, what's to stop secret black ops shit?  The mere existence of such entities is pretty much illegal, why would they operate within the law?

[Sidoh]

Further, like I previously suggested, what's to stop secret black ops shit?  The mere existence of such entities is pretty much illegal, why would they operate within the law?

They wouldn't.

I'm just saying I think it's a lot more likely that it's just some random assholes -- possibly corporate... Occam's razor and all.

[iago]

DDoS attacks are super noisy. Black ops is stealthy. I doubt they're do DDoS.

[deadly7]

Further, like I previously suggested, what's to stop secret black ops shit?  The mere existence of such entities is pretty much illegal, why would they operate within the law?

Haven't read the rest of this thread, but if you're referencing the existence of Wikileaks being illegal and your "black ops shit" means to secretly kill Julian, that's one of the dumbest political moves you can make. Apart from coming out and admitting that the docs are all accurate (which, thanks to all the FUD the gov't has spread about it is already confirmed), if you kill the face of the opposition you martyrize him. People may not go to arms, but then Wikileaks will never be forgotten. Releasing shit on the web is easy; kill Assange and an extremely large amount of nationals as well as internationals will now be mirroring Wikileaks.

[iago]

...Apart from coming out and admitting that the docs are all accurate (which, thanks to all the FUD the gov't has spread about it is already confirmed)...

Assange said in an interview a long time ago that all the fact checking in the world can't confirm a document as well as one takedown notice.

(he may have said that on The Colbert Report, but I don't remember for sure)

[CrAz3D]

Further, like I previously suggested, what's to stop secret black ops shit?  The mere existence of such entities is pretty much illegal, why would they operate within the law?

Haven't read the rest of this thread, but if you're referencing the existence of Wikileaks being illegal and your "black ops shit" means to secretly kill Julian, that's one of the dumbest political moves you can make. Apart from coming out and admitting that the docs are all accurate (which, thanks to all the FUD the gov't has spread about it is already confirmed), if you kill the face of the opposition you martyrize him. People may not go to arms, but then Wikileaks will never be forgotten. Releasing shit on the web is easy; kill Assange and an extremely large amount of nationals as well as internationals will now be mirroring Wikileaks.

I'm not saying they're gonna kill him as I agree re: the martyr thing.  However, govts dont always make the smartest political moves.

[MyndFyre]

...Apart from coming out and admitting that the docs are all accurate (which, thanks to all the FUD the gov't has spread about it is already confirmed)...

Assange said in an interview a long time ago that all the fact checking in the world can't confirm a document as well as one takedown notice.

Eh.  I don't know, man.  That's like saying "The fact that you keep denying it just further reinforces that it's true."  It sets up a scenario in which the alleging party is never wrong.

[iago]

...Apart from coming out and admitting that the docs are all accurate (which, thanks to all the FUD the gov't has spread about it is already confirmed)...

Assange said in an interview a long time ago that all the fact checking in the world can't confirm a document as well as one takedown notice.

Eh.  I don't know, man.  That's like saying "The fact that you keep denying it just further reinforces that it's true."  It sets up a scenario in which the alleging party is never wrong.

That's not at all what I said. When he gets a message saying, "that's our document, take it down", that's proof that it's legitimate (not a forgery).

[nslay]

...Apart from coming out and admitting that the docs are all accurate (which, thanks to all the FUD the gov't has spread about it is already confirmed)...

Assange said in an interview a long time ago that all the fact checking in the world can't confirm a document as well as one takedown notice.

Eh.  I don't know, man.  That's like saying "The fact that you keep denying it just further reinforces that it's true."  It sets up a scenario in which the alleging party is never wrong.

That's not at all what I said. When he gets a message saying, "that's our document, take it down", that's proof that it's legitimate (not a forgery).

What if a forgery casts an entity into such low regard that it is requested to be taken down?

[Blaze]

...Apart from coming out and admitting that the docs are all accurate (which, thanks to all the FUD the gov't has spread about it is already confirmed)...

Assange said in an interview a long time ago that all the fact checking in the world can't confirm a document as well as one takedown notice.

Eh.  I don't know, man.  That's like saying "The fact that you keep denying it just further reinforces that it's true."  It sets up a scenario in which the alleging party is never wrong.

That's not at all what I said. When he gets a message saying, "that's our document, take it down", that's proof that it's legitimate (not a forgery).

What if a forgery casts an entity into such low regard that it is requested to be taken down?

Then it goes from a copyright issue to a slander issue and there's a completely different method of take down?  :\

[MyndFyre]

That's not at all what I said. When he gets a message saying, "that's our document, take it down", that's proof that it's legitimate (not a forgery).

What I'm trying to say though is that he's using volume to expand that.  The US could be saying, "those 5 documents are ours, take them down" but since it applied to 500k+, then the shadow of the five casts legitimacy to the whole bunch.