Unless you've been living under a rock the past couple of weeks, you've no doubt heard of Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and the leaking of U.S. State Department cables. The cables released thus far have contained only mildly titillating information - the sort of gossipy details one might overhear at a dinner party. But the fallout from the leaking of the cables has been anything but mild.
The pro-WiklLeaks camp seems to view Assange as some sort of international Robin Hood - stealing secrets from 'the man' and relaying them to the masses for the common good. That vein has proved popular with many in the media, some of whom Assange favored with advanced copies of the State Department cables. Arguments in defense of Assange range from freedom of speech to the rights of journalistic protection. Ironically, by sending the stolen cables to the journalists (and those journalists subsequently publishing them), Assange's defense under the journalistic freedom argument becomes that much stronger. (And some might argue is the reason Assange took this approach).
Those opposed to the leaks question the perception of Assange's altruism, citing essays written by Assange that seem to layout a premeditated plan for annihilating the U.S. by crippling information sharing. As an example, an excerpt from? "Conspiracy as Governance", a December 2006 essay written by Assange, reads:
"Consider what would happen if one of these parties gave up their mobile phones, fax and email correspondence -- let alone the computer systems which manage their subscribes, donors, budgets, polling, call centres and direct mail campaigns? They would immediately fall into an organizational stupor and lose to the other."
In short, the critics say, the entire WikeLeaks organization was founded not out of a desire for freedom of information, but rather to do the exact opposite - stifle the flow of information such that it would disrupt governments and economies.
The Internet War Zone
The divided camps are waging their battle in an all too predictable fashion - waging denial of service (DoS) attacks against sites from the opposing faction. The initial DoS was launched by a hacker who uses the moniker The Jester and posted via his Twitter feed:
www.wikileaks.org - TANGO DOWN - for attempting to endanger the lives of our troops, 'other assets' & foreign relations #wikileaks #fail
Shortly after the WikiLeaks DoS subsided, Amazon severed hosting for WikiLeaks.org and EveryDNS delisted the domain registration. Other sanctions quickly followed: PayPal froze the account used to funnel contributions to Assange / WikiLeaks and authorities in Sweden froze Assange accounts held in that country. Given that Assange is already the subject of an international manhunt stemming from charges of? sexual misconduct, the loss of access to funds and the constant need to move WikiLeaks certainly must be taking some toll on its founder.
In response, the pro-WikiLeaks camp struck back in a series of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks launched against PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, and various other sites that have either taken action against Assange and/or WikiLeaks or publishing anything remotely critical of Assange / WikiLeaks.
Collateral Damage
The fallout could be rather substantial. The flash mob style participants in the DDoS attacks are likely predominantly a bunch of underage teens driven by the sort of quick impulsive reactions common to that age. Call them hactivists or vandals if you will, but the unfortunate side effect of an always-on Internet connection is that there is little barrier to action. And with little barrier to action, there's precious little time to think things through and reconsider one's actions.
Unfortunately, there are legal repercussions to be had in the hangover stage. Thus far, at least one 16-year-old boy has been arrested for his part (one of only thousands) in clicking through and participating in the attacks. Collateral damage is, of course, also being experienced by the site owners, employees, and customers of the sites and services under attack.
And what of Bradley Manning, the military intelligence soldier that leaked the cables in the first place? Allegedly, his initial actions stemmed from discovering the now notorious Baghdad helicopter footage and realizing that the gunned down parties were innocent bystanders. In a Daniel Ellsberg (aka The Pentagon Papers) style maneuver, Manning sent the footage to WikiLeaks. Was he then encouraged or manipulated by Assange in some way, enticed into procuring the cables and other sensitive information? We may never know.
Other victims of cablegate include innocent non-political parties mentioned in the cables, detailing events about their lives that could potentially harm themselves or their relatives.
And even more collateral victims may arise when Assange begins releasing his next treasure trove of ill-gotten information, this time involving corporations. While minimizing the potential for damage that disclosure could cause, in a slight of mouth double-speak Assange notes that the material could "take down a bank or two".
Indeed, you might even be collateral damage without your realization. DDoS attackers frequently employ botnets to control bot-infected PCs in order to launch attacks against others. Now's a good time to run a full system scan with up-to-date antivirus, before the authorities come knocking at your door.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu