[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at eff.org
Sun Dec 12 02:41:57 EST 2010
Hi Jeremy,
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. 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." 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!
*PRESS RELEASE - 2600 MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS*
Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC
PRESS RELEASE
HACKER MAGAZINE CONDEMNS DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
###
CONTACT:
2600 MAGAZINE: THE HACKER QUARTERLY
webmaster at 2600.com
Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor
Emmanuel at goldste.in
www.2600.com
+1 631 751 2600
On 12/11/10 10:24 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> 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.
> http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12037 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.
>
> 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.
>
> All the best, Katitza
>
>
> On 12/11/10 10:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101211/78a08e5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list