[governance] Re: Draft IGC statement on Wikileaks

Sun Dec 12 02:47:47 EST 2010

Sorry my mistake. I meant to said: "condone". This is what we have said: 
EFF doesn't condone cyber-vigilantism, be it against Mastercard or 
#WikiLeaks.
http://twitter.com/eFF

> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Still the document will be read by governments. Para. 4 is not well 
> drafted. While EFF does not condone 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

-- 
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/20101211/7053ffb2/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