Wikileaks "Cyberwar"

[babycondor]

And what exactly is "civil disobediance" in attacking private companies and individuals like Sarah Palin?

And the lawyers for the women who filed the complaints...

There are different theories of what constitutes civil disobedience. It has been argued that "disobedience in opposition to the decisions of non-governmental agencies such as trade unions, banks, and private universities can be justified if it reflects "a larger challenge to the legal system that permits those decisions to be taken". (Wikipedia, citing Brownlee.)

We were talking about Amazon and PayPal, not Sarah Palin and the womens' lawyers. I don't consider those attacks against individuals as fitting the definition of "civil disobedience."

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm sure A Laughing Baby wasn't referring to this case, which you are right, is illegal.

I think it, and others, are precisely the attacks he was talking about.

Further, even though the attacks themselves are not the proximate reason Wikileaks had to move, it is quite likely they were influential. Being a target of multiple such attacks and being likely to be attacked thus again is a good way to persuade your hosting company to part ways with you.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Let's read it together:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attacks

All this refers to attacks being made by individuals on an internet service to disrupt its ability to be used by its users.

A company that stops its own service to a customer is not "distributed denial of service attack", it's just plain "denial of service", which is what I was answering to, and is legal, unless you can prove that it breached some contract.

Again, I'm not referring in this case to the companies removing their hosting from WL. On the day of the leaks, the WL server went down due to DDoS attacks. Here are some links:

http://mashable.com/2010/11/28/wikileaks-ddos-attack/
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2010/11/round2-ddos-versus-wikileaks/

This is definitely a DDoS attack. I really don't care about the companies removing their hosting services, other than it being in response to a company that has yet to be charged with a crime. I'm referring to the textbook DDoS attack against the WL site on the day of the leak.

ETA:

I think all of this argument is coming about due to you misunderstanding what I am classifying as an attack and what I am not. I am referring to the DDoS attacks against the WL site (and then the retaliatory ones by Anonymous against Visa, Mastercard, and so on), NOT the removal of hosting services against WL. I am upset that the companies removed their hosting, but that is a separate issue for another thread, as I don't think that can be classified as "cyber war."

 

[Pardalis]

Understood.

 

[BenBurch]

Understood.

Glad we sorted that out.

 

[MikeSun5]

I, for one, am glad there are people willing to act when they see an injustice like political arrests, abuse of government power, and attempts to thwart free speech.

Specific leaks that caused real damage should be addressed. I haven't seen one yet though there are lots of general claims such leaks occurred. But politically embarrassing stuff, government officials have no argument that justifies attacking the messenger.

Not all whistle blowers are evil people. Many are courageous, speaking out at great risk and sacrifice because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Seconded.

I did notice that most of the leaked stuff being reported by mainstream media lately are things like silly tabloid-style quotes. It almost seems like this thing could have been avoided if diplomats didn't treat classified cables like high-school note passing.