General discussion

Locked

Wikileaks and DDoS attacks - some thoughts

By Deadly Ernest ·
I was just reading a CNET article about Wikileaks and it mentions some recent DDoS attacks against Wikileaks. This got me thinking.

Most DDoS attacks are organised by bad guys to cause trouble for companies for financial gain or by hackers who are picking on particular companies that upset them. The only people Wikileaks have upset lately are certain US government bureaucrats and politicians due to them making available documents leaked to them from within the US bureaucracy. It seems the US government can't stop their people doing the leaking, hmm a good story back there somewhere, so they're trying to stop them being made public by a non US citizen on a non US web site.

Now, all of a sudden, Wikileaks is being hit with DDoS attacks. It does make me wonder who is organising them as Wikileaks is NOT the sort of organisation the usual organisers of DDoS attacks will hit. The circumstances makes me wonder if this is a black CIA operation or something similar organised by a US government Agency. If that is so, it then raises the question of this being the first one they've done, or not.

I don't know any answers to these issues, but sure would like to know.

On a related issue, I do find it interesting that certain people in the US power structure aren't upset about the dirty linen these cables represent, but are upset that their dirty linen is being made public. In short, doing bad things is OK as long as they don't get caught and they seek to punish those who publicise the nasty work and not those who did the dirty deeds.

What are your thoughts?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

62 total posts (Page 5 of 7)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Neither agree nor disagree but...

by otaku_lord In reply to Single reply to a couple ...

diplomacy and honesty are NOT the same thing.

Diplomacy
?noun
1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
3. skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact: Seating one's dinner guests often calls for considerable diplomacy.


Honesty
?noun,plural-ties.
1. the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness.
2. truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.
3. freedom from deceit or fraud.
4. Botany. a plant, Lunaria annua, of the mustard family, having clusters of purple flowers and semitransparent, satiny pods.
5. Obsolete. chastity.

Collapse -

Except that

by santeewelding In reply to Neither agree nor disagre ...

"Honest woman" is not obsolete.

Collapse -

true diplomatic relationships are based on honesty

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Neither agree nor disagre ...

anything else is just a case of lies to be repudiated at the first opportunity and not conductive to good ongoing relationships.

Honest diplomatic relationships do NOT require you to lay your governmental soul bare, but they do require you to speak the truth when you do say something and they do require you NOT to engage in dirty tricks to get what you want by lies and theft.

Collapse -

But honest negotiations between 2 parties

by JamesRL In reply to true diplomatic relations ...

Do not need to be open to the public, only the results do.

Lets take North Korea. They have nuclear materials and the capability to build and test nuclear weapons. The thing that has restrained them is their need for food and support, not only from China , their traditional ally, but from others, including the US. If all of the deals and negotiations became public, North Korea would be shamed, they would also then become more bellicose, and we would all be a few steps closer to Nuclear war.

Honesty yes, total openness no.

Collapse -

I agree they don't have to be totally open, but they should

by Deadly Ernest In reply to But honest negotiations b ...

be such that any exposure of behind the scenes stuff should NOT caused major embarrassment or trouble - yet these have, which shows they were NOT honest.

Collapse -

Perhaps The Could Grow Up

by dogknees In reply to But honest negotiations b ...

Given that they are shamed by there own behaviour, not someone elses, they should suck it up!

Maybe it's tradional. So are a lot of things we don't do any more. The world changes, hopefully towards a more open and honest way of doing things. Why should people who are working against this be protected from embarrasment?

If you're a servant of the people and you do the wrong thing, you deserve approbation and public shame.

That's where I part ways with a lot of people. These people are not our leaders, they are our servants and need to remember it.

Collapse -

I resemble that emotion - well said (nt)

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Perhaps The Could Grow Up
Collapse -

Assisting a known felon

by Saurondor In reply to Single reply to a couple ...

Although Wikileaks could be charged with assisting the person who actually committed the crime and be responsible for the crime itself. We should really ask ourselves how could this come to be and more important yet. Has it happened before and we didn't hear about it?

What if the person who got the documents in the first place turned to China or North Korea instead of Wikileaks? What if there are people doing this right now and leaking stuff to other governments?

The Wikileaks leak is like seeing a bad movie. We've been told its bad, but we just haven't listened to the dialog yet to know exactly how bad it is. The issue isn't that the US Government and its representatives abroad are doing these "bad things". The US is a super power driven by corporate interests. What else did you expect? If someone thinks this is new or revealing they should catch up on some history, I'd recommend Roman history.

What I see as the real issue is why is this leaking from this end and not the other. Are the Russians clean? The British? The French? The Chinese? For heavens sake no. So why is the defense network of the country that spends more money in defense than just about everyone else combined have issues like this?

Collapse -

There are few instances

by JamesRL In reply to Assisting a known felon

Where you can be charged in one country for activities you did in another. War crimes are one, some countries have enacted laws where if one of their citizens committs sex crimes in other jurisdictions they can be charged, but thats being challenged in court.

If as they claim, Wikileaks didn't instigate the theft, but simply received the information after the theft, what can they charge him with, since he wasn't in the US nor is he a US citizen?

I haven't seen too many bad leaks, just embarsassment. One I did see that could cause someone to lose their life, is the fact that someone in the Iranian Security ministry was leaking information about Taliban activities around Khandahar to Canadian diplomats, who gave the intel to Canadian forces in the region. Iran is a highly factionilized country, and the Revolutionary guards like and support the Taliban, the security establishment does not. If the guard can find the source of leak, they will assassinate him/her. And its possible that without that intel, more Canadian solidiers will die. But hey thats ok right? WRONG!

Collapse -

Exactly my point

by Saurondor In reply to There are few instances

Wouldn't that piece of information be more valuable to the Iranian guards than to Wikileaks? Is that the only Taliban related piece of information on the government's defense network? Hardly so. Could more leaks be happening right now without the general public's knowledge? Probably so.

So who's the guiltiest here? Wikileaks? The leaker? Or the government for having such lax security?

I believe the ultimate responsible here is the government. They're handling very sensitive material with low levels of security. That is ultimately what is putting peoples lives at risk. A bit like carrying around nuclear waste in a ox cart. Some is bound to spill.

BTW, this isn't meant to justify or excuse Wikileaks or the person who provided Wikileaks with this stuff. Just to raise the issue that it was possible due to incompetence and lack of due diligence on the government's part. By not securing a network to the standards they bragged (and billed) to.

Ultimately the responsibility of a lock is on the locksmith and not the amount of crooks trying to get through your door.

Back to Community Forum
62 total posts (Page 5 of 7)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums