<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Jeremy,<br>
<br>
Still the document will be read by governments. Para. 4 is not well
drafted. While EFF does not condem DDoS attacks to any of both
sides, as speech should be fight with more speech. Many others (not
me) believe that those attacks are also political speech/civil
disobedience. <font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">As
Magagin 2006 said: "While there is great sympathy in the hacker
world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no
better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against."</font>
In any case, I personally do not like the way it is framed. You
should not use the word hackers. Those DDoS attacks were made by who
knows! <br>
<br>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font><font color="#330033" face="helvetica" size="3"><b>PRESS
RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS</b><br>
Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC
</font>
<p><font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">PRESS RELEASE
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">HACKER MAGAZINE
CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">New York, NY,
December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal for the
hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking out
against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for
a spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part
of the ongoing Wikileaks controversy.
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">Denial of service
attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and other
corporations and entities have been underway for the last few
days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these
targets had previously taken some sort of action against the
whistleblower website wikileaks.org and its affiliates. The
media reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being
behind these actions. While there is great sympathy in the
hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity
is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting
against.
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">These attacks, in
addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish
very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no
technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires
a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses,
this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same
degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people
who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community.
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">What the above named
corporations have done to Wikileaks is inexcusable and
constitutes a different sort of denial of service attack, one
that is designed to eliminate an organization, an individual, or
an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can easily be
made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals through
these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes leaked
information - and which has never been charged or convicted of a
crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the
place of credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or
potential threat level of anyone, let alone those who are
following in the long tradition of journalists and free speech
advocates worldwide.
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">The assault on
Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of
service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be
associated with the hacker community. This will play right into
the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp
down on freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new
restrictions on the Internet, not to mention the fact that the
exact same types of attacks can be used on "us" as well as
"them." (Interestingly, it was only a week ago that "hackers"
were blamed for denial of service attacks on Wikileaks itself.
That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most importantly,
these attacks are turning attention away from what is going on
with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people
attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It
certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such
immature and boorish activities any more than it helps the
hacker community. From what we have been hearing over the past
24 hours, this is a viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By
uniting our voices, speaking out against this sort of action,
and correcting every media account we see and hear that
associates hackers with these attacks, we stand a good chance of
educating the public, rather than enflaming their fears and
assumptions.
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">There are a number
of positive steps people - both inside and outside of the hacker
community - can take to support Wikileaks and help spread
information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut
Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any
sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are
unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent
method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating
with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a
way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your
skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never
accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent.
That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of
dealing with a problem.
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">2600 Magazine has
been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, about, and
for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 by the
Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website
containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and
thus became the first test case of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. In a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by
linking to their existing website through wikileaks.2600.com.
We've already changed where this address points to twice as
Wikileaks sites have been taken down, and will continue to
ensure that this link always manages to get to wherever
Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link and
support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is
being publicized on their site.
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">###
</font></p>
<p>
<font color="#330033" face="courier" size="3">CONTACT:<br>
2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:webmaster@2600.com">webmaster@2600.com</a><br>
Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Emmanuel@goldste.in">Emmanuel@goldste.in</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.2600.com">www.2600.com</a><br>
+1 631 751 2600</font></p>
<br>
On 12/11/10 10:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D046AA9.6080007@eff.org" type="cite">Hi
there,
<br>
<br>
I do not know why we should mentioned this paragraph (para. 4) in
a submission to the United Nations. BTW, the hacker community is
not involve in those attacks. You should be careful. The hacker
community (who does legal things) "freedom to tinker" has issued a
press release about it. See: 600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF
SERVICE ATTACKS. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037">http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037</a> In
any case, I think, that paragrahp does not add anything in a
submission to the UN, and it can be not well understood by
Government officials.
<br>
<br>
Finally, I would apologize but I am not sure if I will be able to
get comments from my organization for this submission for this
tight deadline. However, I will do my best to see if I am able to
do it within your deadline.
<br>
<br>
All the best, Katitza
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">This is not to say that the Internet
community's governance methods are necessarily any more
legitimate; far from it, in the case of the retributive attacks
of hackers against those who targeted Wikileaks. In truth
governments, business, and Internet users alike have responded
to the Wikileaks affair in an arbitrary and unaccountable
fashion.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</body>
</html>