Anonymous preparing for new Wikileaks effort
WikiLeaks may be a small player, really, in the bigger scheme of things. But to some degree it is also a bellwether, a forecast of things to come as information and technology continue to nip at the heels of the state. Perhaps we really are approaching a time when government becomes less relevant, less necessary, where other institutions both real and virtual can begin to supplant the role of the state in our lives, subversively at first but then more openly as time passes.
– Erik Kain, Secrecy and the State
There is no period in human history that matches the years between 1990 and 2010 in the degree to which the common terminology used at the end would have been unrecognizable to those who lived at its beginning. Because the dynamic which has caused this to be the case does not seem to have crested, we ourselves should not expect to recognize some great portion of the terminology that will be in regular use in 2030. It is even possible that 2030 will be as different from 2010 as 2010 is from 1990, although this would quite a feat; the central dynamic by which each of several billion people may now communicate and collaborate with any of those other several billion people has already been established, and all that remains now is for more of those people to realize the implications of this and then act upon those implications, as they have already begun to do, even if the media at large is still having trouble with the former.
I will have a lot more to say in this vein presently as my main focus for the last several years has been emergent internet dynamics in general and Anonymous and Wikileaks in particular, but for now I’ll have to confine myself to providing an overview of what’s been happening over the past few days and what will be happening next.
The other day I mentioned in passing that I’ve long been in communication with a certain fellow who, along with a couple of other individuals, launched Operation Chanology in an effort to bring wider attention to the malevolence and misconduct of the Church of Scientology. This was the first global effort of its sort, and despite the successful prosecution of a small percentage of participants, it was in many ways a great success (not least of which because it’s not entirely over). This person, Gregg Housh, kept his identity secret until such time as the CoS tracked him down and began legal proceedings; having been outed anyway, he’s lately become a sort of go-to guy for those media which find themselves in need of someone who can relay a sense of what Anonymous is all about (he’s had 29 interview requests over the last 24 hours and will be appearing on CNN tomorrow), having so far this week gone on Canadian television and been interviewed for a New York Times piece on that latter organization, which became an ally of his own a while back when it agreed to host stolen church documents.
I’d already been talking to Housh more than usual over the last few days due to the death of our mutual friend Sean Carasov, who was also caught and prosecuted by the CoS. A couple days back he told me he was unhappy with the NYT interview, particularly in light of a new attack on Mastercard and Paypal by another “branch” of Anonymous with which he is not in contact.
I interviewed with Ravi Somaiya tonight (sunday december 5th.) He wanted to know about Anonymous and the new call to action where they have sided with Wikileaks. I said I could get him the answers. I made it clear that I did not have anything to do with it and that I was not going to. Which I will not. Not because I dont believe in what they are doing, but because I have had my share of run ins with the law and am not going to risk anything big right now. He (Ravi) made it clear that he understood that and then asked me about how he should mention me. We agreed that he would say that I was just someone who had taken part in anonymous action in the past. Specifically that he would simply call me an activist.Instead of doing what he said he would, he threw me under the bus. The article reads as if I am somehow part of the group of people orchestrating the action. Which I am not, and will not be. I am also not in contact with them (whoever they might be) and will not be.
Just for the record, Gregg and I both think that this was the result of an editing error; Somaiya was afterwards very apologetic and the online version has been fixed. I mention this not just because Housh wanted to clarify his involvement for the record, but also because it goes to the heart of the difficulties that many media outlets have had in trying to get a handle on this culture and its unstructured nature, which I’ll also have more to say about it later.
An hour ago, Housh just notified me a few minutes ago that the same small group that launched Chanology – also via a YouTube video announcement – has just now put up another one concerning the various violent threats against Wikileaks and Julian Assange as well as their intent to take action on the matter. By way of another clarification, although Housh was in the IRC channel in which this was conceived and created by his longtime partners, he was too busy doing interviews at the time to lend a hand.
A moment ago I asked Housh what this meant in terms of what we can expect from his corner of the Anonymous movement, as well as from the other makeshift “cells”.
Keep letting targets present themselves, and then attack, is what it seems to be right now.
Presumably I’ll have more to relate in the coming days.
Update
… or the coming minutes. Visa.com is down as of 4:18 EST. See you in 2030.
Update
The cool kids are starting to take notice. A couple years ago, it would take them at least a week to report on something like this. Now it happens within hours.
Update
Housh’s latest NYT interview is now up via a new piece on the latest round of Anonymous attacks.
Update
As I mention in the comments, I consider these sorts of attacks against corporations that collaborate with governments to be entirely legitimate. And via the latest round of Wikileaks releases, here’s a reminder as to why this is my position.
Nice to see this crowd has, like the animal rights crowd, proven themselves me to be terrorists of their own sort. If Master Card or Visa won’t take money for Wikileaks so what? Attacking them only proves that folks like me were right about them them all along.Report
I don’t condone what Anonymous is doing, but let’s be clear, they don’t even rate the same degree of a “terrorism” label that branch animal rights activists deserve. A few animal rights activists are actually violent (although I’d constitute them more as criminals than terrorists, but we could quibble over that I suppose). Anonymous isn’t actually, yanno, physically threatening anybody.Report
I didn’t know physically threatening folks was the sole criteria for being a terrorist. I think shutting down a business’ website over something as inane as not taking money qualifies. At minimum it is a criminal act just like many of the things the animal rights crowd has done in the name of the poor animals.Report
> I didn’t know physically threatening folks was the sole criteria
> for being a terrorist.
Okay. What’s the criteria for being a terrorist? Here’s my definition of a terrorist: someone who participates in violent acts against citizenry, in an attempt to create fear in a populace, in supposed furtherance of a political or social agenda.
Does the Unabomber count (no, he’s just a psycho, Joe Average was never afraid of the Unabomber)? How about Timothy McVeigh (arguable, he certainly targeted civilians, but he clearly wasn’t going to blow up a mall)? John Hinckley (nope, just a nut)? Is the guy who holds up a liquor store a terrorist (no)? What if he shouts racial slurs while he does it (no)? How about the KKK (Historically? Yes)? Scott Roeder (no)?
> I think shutting down a business’ website over something as
> inane as not taking money qualifies.
I’m not entirely sure I’m happy with where I draw the line, but it sure as hell isn’t here.Report
So shutting down websites doesn’t “create fear in a populace, in supposed furtherance of a political or social agenda?” I think it does.Report
No, it doesn’t, dude. Nobody called SQL Slammer a terrorist weapon, nor did they call “ATMs are offline” terrifying. Nobody called the Microsoft DCOM/RPC worm a terrorist weapon.
If you’re counting this as terrorism, the word literally has no meaning other than “criminal activity”. In which case, the scope of “the war on terror” just freaked out.
DDOS attacks happen *every day*. Spammers attack screening sites. Russian gangsters take online gambling sites down and threaten to keep them down if they’re not paid extortion money. Most people don’t even know it.Report
See, this is the kind of “oh it’s just the Internet, it’s not like it matters” thinking that’s getting more and more people in trouble. It’s like people still think the Internet is just for nerds, just a kid thing, just a passing fad and next year we’ll all be crazy about something else.
Imagine if, instead of a DDoS, this anonymous crowd went out to Visa’s corporate headquarters and glued the doors shut, then threw caltrops and burning diesel fuel all around the building, and then disconnected all the phone lines going in. We wouldn’t be sitting around talking like it was a harmless prank.Report
Not really no. The internet is important, but as yet nothing that happens on it can be terrifying. Maybe one day, but not yet. I mean, you can shut down the postal service and I wouldn’t be terrified either. Same goes for spraying people’s fur coats with paint. Terrorism is not the same thing as vandalism. Vandalism is bad, but it does not cause terror.Report
Simon:
“Vandalism is bad, but it does not cause terror.” According to whom is this statement true? The person doing it or the person on the receiving end of it? Sounds like a poor way of rationalizing your actions.Report
> See, this is the kind of “oh it’s just the Internet, it’s not
> like it matters” thinking that’s getting more and more
> people in trouble. It’s like people still think the Internet
> is just for nerds, just a kid thing, just a passing fad and
> next year we’ll all be crazy about something else.
I would hazard a guess that I’ve spent a lot more time thinking about the Internet, how people interact with it, and the security implications of that interaction than most people have, dude. I’m not sure how you get to this conclusion.
> Imagine if, instead of a DDoS, this anonymous crowd
> went out to Visa’s corporate headquarters and glued
> the doors shut,
This, by itself? Petty vandalism.
> then threw caltrops and burning diesel fuel all around
> the building,
Either assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, or any one of a number of other actual crimes… (also, obviously dangerous)
> and then disconnected all the phone lines going in.
This. Just this, all by itself.
Taking down a web site is fairly analogous to cutting off someone’s phone line, without doing the other *actually physically dangerous things* you threw in the middle of your comment.
There are exceptions, of course. Taking down a hospital’s information systems could be actually harmful. Taking a power grid down could be disastrous. Those might actually *qualify* as terrorism. This does not.Report
*sigh* so in other words, it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye, sticks and stones can break my bones but (lack of) words can never hurt me, and a company that depends on communication services as the fundamental basis for its operations can’t be said to be harmed–in any way!–by having those communications services shut off.
That’s what you’re saying here, right?Report
I should know better at this point than to speak to you as if you were an intellectually honest person, but I’d just like to note that although I strongly dislike the “animal rights” movement, its members have not exactly perpetrated any more violence than has the pro-life movement.Report
How cute, you get your petty insult in before you try and make your point.Report
Oh hello tu quoque, how are you today? It’s been a while since I saw you.Report
As much as I hate the pro-life movement, I’d like to point out that Aum Shinrikyo has killed twice as many people as the pro-life movement has.
I’m only pointing this out because I am intellectually honest.Report
What’s the total count on the pro-life movement?Report
According to wikipedia, 6.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
The Aum Shinrikyo subway attacks killed 12.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo#1995_Tokyo_sarin_gas_attacks_and_related_incidentsReport
Interesting. I knew that the number was lower than I had been lead to believe in the past, but I didn’t realize it was that low.Report
Pro-Life wackos: 6
Abortion facilitators: 40 million
The good news is prolife people usually pray for those commie-dems determined to slaughter their young.Report
That’s a bad comparison, Bob.
You’d have to change one group or the other for them to map similarly. “Abortion facilitators” could include anyone who votes pro-choice, even if they don’t ever commit an abortion or even condone them morally.
If you’re going to include them as responsible in whole or in part for your 40 million figure, you’re going to have to include all of the pro-life people as bearing moral culpability for the Pro-Life wacko’s body count. Not that this improves the ratio any, obviously 🙂Report
I for one welcome our new cyberpunk overlords.Report
Heh. If you’d like to meet a couple of them, including Housh, you’re more than welcome to join us tonight at 7 EST for our weekly Project PM IRC meeting. Housh will be “present” but may not say much since he’s doing interviews all evening.Report
Well, I’m too late for tonight’s meeting, but next time tell them for that they’re a bunch of numskulls. Visa’s a private corporation, so they’ve got a right to do business with whom they want, and not do business with whom they don’t want. Even those who support wikileaks ought to be able to recognize that nobody else should be coerced into doing so. I don’t see how substituting an authoritarianism of anonymous and self-appointed juveniles for our current authoritarianism of public and publicly appointed juveniles is any kind of improvement.Report
VISA is a node of the mercantile power structure insomuch as that it makes financial contributions to politicians both directly and through its PAC and benefits from government regulation (while also successfully steering some of that regulation through what are essentially bribes to officeholders). It is a legitimate target by virtue of its connections to and influence over the state, which is itself the largest violator of rights both actual and ideal. The fact that it no longer allows its customers to make contributions to Wikileaks despite the fact that they may still make contributions to any number of terrible organizations, coupled with the fact that there is currently a struggle between the various degenerate nation-states and their supporters on one hand and an array of individuals who are seeking to reveal the misconduct of those nation-states on the other, makes Visa an even more attractive target. Note that no one on our side is calling for anyone’s murder, whereas even actual officeholders on the other are pressuring their fellow statists to kill one of our leaders. Meanwhile, Visa is getting its website taken down temporarily in a move that is entirely akin to any number of civil disobedience measures that have been directed towards both states and companies for a hundred years now.
Edit
I should also note that no one present at tonight’s meeting was involved in any attacks on Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, or anything else. Housh does not participate in DDOS attacks but is instead involved in organizing and information distribution. I’ve never engaged in a DDOS attack against any non-governmental body other the the Church of Scientology, which I won’t even bother extolling as a legitimate target, given their activities.Report
Marx, yadda yadda yadda. So find some other way to make contributions to Wikileaks. All I hear is a lot of whinging that “the node of the corporate power structure isn’t making it easy for me so I’ll have to work a little harder–I know, I’ll attack that node.” Jesus, anarchy is supposed to be about people working peacefully together, not anonymously attacking each other. I stand by my claim that it’s basically an adolescent way to act.Report
Well, you win this round!Report
I doubt I’ll win many, so I’ll treasure this one.Report
It just struck me…there’s a great irony in people trying to hold Visa accountable, while they themselves act anonymously so as to ensure that they cannot themselves be held accountable.Report
Not so much.
Their ability to hold Visa accountable is very limited, they bug them for a day or two. They being held accountable, on the other hand, has a much greater impact on their lives, like 20 years in prison for computer hacking, or in this hyperbolic baloney “digital terrorism” claim above.
Again, not condoning this (I don’t really see it the way Barrett does), but I don’t think it’s ironic at all that someone would want to strike an anonymous blow in the name of accountability.Report
Barrett:
I see, so now interfering with lawful commerce and possibly damaging private property is civil disobedience. Just so you know, it is entirely lawful for Visa to decide how folks can use their services. Clearly some folks will rational anything. These folks sound more like the anti-abortion and the ALF/ELF wackos all the time.Report
Twitter has just suspended the @Anon_Operation account, which had 22,173 followers…Report
Yes, but #anonopsnet and #AnonOperation have already sprung up to replace them.Report
Love itReport
Time to play whack-a-mole.Report
Man, you dudes and dudettes are way ahead of me. Hell, I’ve only got dial-up and a bad land line at that.
I’m still reeling from the fact that our Kenyan-Marxist president is the new, improved George Bush. At this rate the TPers going into the House in a few weeks won’t have any work to do.Report
lol @Kenyan-Marxist presidentReport
Robert–help is on the way! My Christmas present to you is free lifetime high speed Internet cable–Comcast is on the way this second. We, or I should say, I want and need to hear more from you—as always, you must let complete stream-of-consciousness take over–just let ‘er rip! Liberal sensibilities be damned!Report
Wow H-man, that’s the best gift since the beloved Martha got me a S&W, M&P, ACP .45 which I now carry, concealed, on my person!
The dial-up problems are part of the reason for my silence,….it’s hard to maneuver and takes soooooo long, and I end up cussing at Bill Gates and his stupid wife. I actually had a great comment for Jon and it ended up dumped into the cosmos!
The other reason is that you guys are soooooo bright and I’m impressed with the new crew, while continuing to love my old pals.Report
He means me. 😛Report
and Barrett. <3Report
but mostly me.Report
Hey. I am getting a 404 when I try to use the link: https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2010/12/07/question-for-readers/ Any ideas why?Report
Not anymore. Weird.Report
Now, I am getting the following messages from StumbleUpon upon trying to submit that post:
“We are unable to reach that website. Please try again later.”Report
Erik is revamping the site and it’s causing some temporary problems with links.Report
(cough) Staging site! (cough)
Don’t make changes on the production server! Bad sysadmin! No biscuit!Report
I’m watching Anonymous with bated breath and all, but I’m a bit concerned that stuff like this could be used as pretext to come down hard on the Internet in general.Report
Is it helpful to call Anonymous a “movement”? It’s more of a cyber-organism, or a hivemind.Report
Anonymous will be able to focus on this until about the time that Tron: Legacy comes out.Report