Contraganda
One of the the things I like about the concept of Wikileaks is having organizations dedicated to preventing propaganda, keeping the State on its toes knowing that someone is watching. I think a lot of people are going to have re-evaluate this concept in the Information Age to understand that a free flow of information can be good — my only concern is that an organization like Wikileaks can begin violating the privacy of private users just for the sake of accessing and disseminating information, or to try to ruin/silence political enemies — I guess some code of ethics is needed, and if players violate the ethics, then they can be exposed and excoriated for acting badly.
He’s right. We do need a code of ethics here. Hackers took down Visa.com and Mastercard.com because the companies cut off payments to Wikileaks. Is it mere vandalism? Or vigilante justice? For some perspective, it’s been pointed out that you could and still can make a donation to the KKK with your credit cards — on both services if I’m not mistaken.
On the one hand, we might say this exposes the hypocrisy of the credit card companies. On the other hand, why weren’t hackers taking them down for supporting the Klan? What gives, hackers? Are you really that cool with the Klan?
An obvious answer might be that giving money to Wikileaks right at this particular moment matters a whole lot. Things really seem to be at stake here — big things, things that will affect the course of states and the nature of government itself in the digital age. The decisions we make here will set us on a path, one of relatively more or less transparency, but also one of more or less state power. Wikileaks donations might matter in all of that. By contrast, perhaps giving money to the Klan is about as effective as eating it for dinner, at least these days.
If so, then we live in some interesting times. But also, maybe the credit card companies really are taking sides, not just being stupid or hypocritical. This doesn’t make the hackers’ actions any less illegal, of course. But they do become understandable as something much more than mere vandalism.
Has anyone actually confirmed that you can donate to the KKK using VISA, or is it made up BS to excuse the hackers actions? Let’s also remember the Wikileaks has in their possession and is in the process of releasing secret and top secret material. If I were a company like VISA I wouldn’t let them use my company to further such actions. Who is naive enough to believe that the folks that did this would ever agree to a code of ethics?Report
I’d prefer not to direct you to a Klan website, but here you go. Click through, and it offers Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.Report
The American Nazi Party (Google it; I’m not linking to them) appears to take only cash and money orders. I expect it’s because they don’t want teh Joos who run the banks tracing them.Report
Scott, it’s not a matter of getting bad players to follow a code of ethics, it’s a matter of working out the ethics in the Information Age so that bad actors are revealed and excoriated for ethics violations — so that bad behavior is not encouraged by gullible young users — For a new generation, the power of hacking and revealing information might be a rush, but if it’s used indiscriminately, unethically, in a way that invades the private lives of innocent people, destroying their livelihoods or endangering their families, there should be some code of ethics to reveal the bad players, so that they are criticized — punished, if they violate someone’s rigts – not praised for being destructive anarchists who cause a backlash from the government giving them the reasons they need to tightly regulate the internet.Report
Don’t we already have laws against doing the sort of thing these folks have done? If so, then what do we need more rules for them to break? Or maybe I should ask where are the parents to teach these folks ethics in the first place.Report
Scott, that’s what I’m talking about is a code of ethics for the gray areas — something known among users, not more laws. Yes, there are laws which will apply to some egregious behavior, but not in the gray areas, and it is here that society should have a conversation, especially the young users, so that it’s not just a matter of willy-nilly hacking and revealing information just because you can.Report
These people have ethics. The one I’ve written about recently, Gregg Housh, built a website to spotlight charities with low visibility. Others have volunteered to work on a project for African development which I’m overseeing.Report
I should make very clear that I’m not endorsing this behavior at all. Still, even as with terrorism — an a fortiori if ever there was one — understanding the agents’ motivations is tremendously important. Is it proper to call a DDoS a form of civil disobedience? Some have said yes, and others, no. I’m undecided.
One thing that won’t impress me much is to reiterate that there are laws against it. That’s the whole point of civil disobedience. There were laws against blacks sitting in the front of the bus, too, and that point… well, at that point the laws can take a flying leap. Have we reached a similar point? That’s where things get interesting.
Speaking directly to that question is an examination of some of the drawbacks of this type of action, or why it’s unlikely to achieve its aim, or why it does unacceptably high levels of collateral damage. Here’s a good post arguing in that direction.
Note that throughout, from righteous antisegregation protests all the way down to al Qaeda, we are talking about illegal actions. The question here is of justification outside the law. Sometimes you most certainly have it. Other times you most certainly don’t. And still other times, it’s harder to tell.Report
The internet never wants for opportunities to post links to Kenny Rogers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo
When you’re finished watching that, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpnmfbLiRngReport
To quote myself from yesterday’s discussion with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and some of his readers:
Incredibly, there has been more “serious discussion” about arresting Anons and assassinating Julian Assange than there has been in regards to trying Bush administration officials such as Dick Cheney with crimes. If the rule of law is applied selectively and in such a way as to allow Shell partial control of the Nigerian state and thus further prevent that state from catering to the needs of its people, and in such a way as that the powerful may commit any number of crimes in the course of launching a poorly-executed war and not only stay out of court but also go on to speak to corporate audiences in exchange for huge fees – whereas meanwhile a 16-year-old kid in The Netherlands is snatched up in 24 hours for DDOSing a corporate web site – then those who consider the world’s governments to be a legitimate arbiters of justice will have to accept that some of us do not agree.
Either the U.S. government is the client of its people and corporate citizens and acts in accordance to their will – in which case it is those people and corporate citizens who are responsible for the crimes of that government, and thus ought not to act so surprised when a couple of their websites are being disrupted – or it is not, in which case an attack on a couple of corporate websites are the least of their worries (which is not to say that they wouldn’t put those at the top of their list anyway and perhaps get around to the government thing during a commercial break).
At any rate, that is where I am in my life after having seen what I’ve seen.Report
Jason,
Yes, I’m all for civil disobedience when the State is violating rights. I am for openness when it comes to the government, and the more we know the better off we are. I just caution the silly romanticism of hackers who are drunk with some illusion that they are modern day super-hero freedom-fighters. This kind of silliness can cause some half-baked ideologue to ruin private citizens just because they can access private info and do damage. I just think we need plenty of converstations like this one — thanks.Report
So your answer to “If not now, when?” is something along the lines of “After you take of those tights and that stupid cape.”?Report
That would help — it makes it hard to take them seriously — especially when they say “Shazzam!”Report
Jason:
Tell us then, what law(s) are the Wikileaks supporters protesting by attacking private enterprises?Report
‘Private enterprises’?
How naive.Report
Last time I checked, VISA, MasterCard and PayPal were private enterprises, unless the definition has changed. Has it?Report
Mike: “For a new generation, the power of hacking and revealing information might be a rush, but if it’s used indiscriminately, unethically, in a way that invades the private lives of innocent people, destroying their livelihoods or endangering their families, there should be some code of ethics to reveal the bad players, so that they are criticized — punished, if they violate someone’s rigts – not praised for being destructive anarchists who cause a backlash from the government giving them the reasons they need to tightly regulate the internet.”
Yes – can you imagine what sort of world we’d have if people could, like – just do stuff? And hurt people? Frequently keeping it secret, and avoiding punishment even if it came out afterwards?Report
I see what you did there.Report
Barry, do you have reading comprehension problems? This is the most naked, ignorant word-twisting I’ve witnessed here in a long time. You should be ashamed of yourself, and take a course in ethics.Report
Yeah, Barry! Governments and their employees don’t do stuff that hurts people and try to keep it secret while avoiding punishment! Mike, you should teach him about ethics and then compare me to people you’ve known who lied about writing for magazines again!Report
Art/Obscenity
Vandalism/Protest
Journalism/Some Guy with a Smart PhoneReport
Barrett:
Why do you continue to harp on Shell, Nigeria and the US gov’t? Shell is not a US company, so shouldn’t the Dutch or the Brits do something about its behavior and not us?Report
I think it’s important, and interesting, to point out that Anonymous, on its boards, is one place were such discussions about the ethics of hacking takes place. Groups, or quasi-groups, like Anonymous don’t worry me. It’s the 15-year old kid in his bedroom with no affiliation, even a loose one, with a group like Anonymous, who has no real concept of the consequences of his or her actions for others, and no real understanding of how things work in the larger world, and who is therefore much more likely to operate without an ethical code, or even if he or she has one, to apply it unskillfully.Report
Whoops. Sorry, Chris—somehow my brain transposed “hacking” into “hijacking”. Not once, but twice. Sheesh.Report
In order to effectively oppose the State, there has to be an intelligent attack, not just something which is more like a dumb, destructive virus. In order to reveal the flaws of the State, there must be clarity and focus — something that pierces the intellect and creates light. In a battle of simple destruction, the State will win, and everybody who gives a damn about freedom will lose, because there will be lots of collateral damageReport
Chris, now THAT’S side splittingly funny–” Anonymous, on its boards, is one place were such discussions about the ethics of hacking takes place.” How about the ethics of serial killing?.” Or the ethics of hijacking and sinking a cruise ship.” Or the ethics of concentration camps? Or the ethics of abducting a country’s Olympic athletes and executing every one of them? I’m assuming this is tongue and cheek and your just yanking the chains of the readers here. I can’t wait to check this out. And thanks for the laughs!Report