Who is attacking?

[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?  :\