How Wikileaks & Operation Payback Have Exposed Infrastructure That Should Be Decentralized, But Isn't

from the real-trend dept

The classic line about how "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it," is certainly being proven true yet again these days, but there is an interesting corollary that might be worth considering in this as well: which is that sometimes these attempts at censorship expose the need for new routes, and those routes are quickly created.

We've been pointing out repeatedly for a while now that the real issue we're witnessing with things like Wikileaks and Operation Payback is the confusion a centralized/closed system has when it comes up against a more distributed and open system. Much of what we've seen concerning both Wikileaks and Operation Payback over the past few weeks is exposing the cracks in the system where things that should be more decentralized and distributed are not.

However, it seems that each time new centralized intermediaries spring up to cause problems, all it's really done is to drive more people to figure out ways to create more distributed and decentralized alternatives. We've already discussed a more decentralized DNS system, but now the EFF is listing out a variety of distributed and decentralized projects that it hopes will help people route around censorship attempts.

As the EFF notes, many of those individual projects probably won't succeed or catch on, but others will. In a few years, it will be interesting to look back and see just how many new, more distributed and decentralized infrastructure systems really came out of the "fights" we're seeing splashed across the news today. The real shame, of course, is that the US government, who has been speaking so forcefully about being against online censorship over the last year or so, may ultimately be the leading cause for these new infrastructure tools to be built, and not because it supported them directly, but because of its current attempts at censorship.

Filed Under: centralized, closed, decentralized, infrastructure, open, operation payback, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Operation Payback May Now Start Focusing On Actually Digging Through Wikileaks Leaks For Details

from the much-more-effective dept

While I find Operation Payback fascinating, from a sociological/cultural perspective, I've said from the very beginning that I thought their DDoS strategy to be a bad idea. I was happy, last month, when the folks behind it effectively had "called off" their attacks on copyright-related sites, and a bit disappointed (though, again, fascinated) by the more recent attacks in support of Wikileaks. However, there are now reports that the group has (as it did with the copyright issue) decided to back off the DDoS attacks, but instead, work towards helping to sift through all of the Wikileaks leaks to find the hidden gems of information that need more attention and exposure. As the plan says, "they don't fear the LOIC (the tool used for the attacks), they fear exposure." Could it be that out of what some consider "vandalism," we may get journalism? Welcome to the new digital world...

Filed Under: journalism, operation payback, wikileaks

Is Operation Payback A Crime... Or Just The Modern Equivalent Of A Sit In?

from the ddos-the-student-center,-man dept

With the news coming out that Dutch officials have supposedly arrested someone involved in "Operation Payback," the Anonymous-driven DDoSing of certain websites (first those in favor of stronger copyright, and now those working against Wikileaks), Evgeny Morozov raises an interesting question: is this just the modern digital equivalent of staging a sit-in?

I don't think that their attacks are necessarily illegal or immoral. As long as they don't break into other people's computers, launching DDoS should not be treated as a crime by default; we have to think about the particular circumstances in which such attacks are launched and their targets. I like to think of DDoS as equivalents of sit-ins: both aim at briefly disrupting a service or an institution in order to make a point. As long as we don't criminalize all sit-ins, I don't think we should aim at criminalizing all DDoS.

That's part of a larger post, where he worries that the government will overreact to these forms of attacks and use it to try to get greater oversight over the internet, and force less anonymity online. Of course, I would imagine that any such attempt to do so would backfire, and simply drive forward efforts to create more truly distributed and underground connections.

Later, Morozov notes that, in Germany at least, courts have said that activism-driven DDoS's are, in fact, the equivalent of a sit-in.

I can see both sides of this argument. Of course, you can also argue that a basic sit-in is a form of trespassing, and thus against the law, but we tend to tolerate it for the most part. But, like many sit-ins, I think the bigger issue is that I'm not convinced these DDoS attacks are even remotely effective. Do they get attention? Yes, absolutely. Especially the attacks on Visa and MasterCard. But will it actually do anything productive? That's not clear. It might make some companies think twice before doing certain things, but I'm not sure it will really matter that much.

The longer term effects may be more damaging. I'm not convinced the government would actually be able to successfully crack down via any attempt to get greater oversight on internet usage, but I think that there is the potential that these forms of attacks will backfire and could make people take the real issues behind censorship and online freedom less seriously, as they're associated with what's viewed as a sort of immature and sophomoric approach to the discussion.

Filed Under: activisim, anonymous, crimes, operation payback, protests, sit-ins

Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed

from the the-soul-of-the-internet dept

Back in October, I wrote a thought-piece on how "the revolution will be distributed," comparing Wikileaks to Anonymous' "Operation Payback" (whose tactics I disagree with). I noted that the two were very different, and were focused on very different issues, but that both were essentially about distributed and open systems taking on systems that were centralized and closed -- and that the folks in those centralized and closed systems didn't seem to understand this. Thus, all of their reactions did little to fix the challenges they were facing.

It seems that my comparison of the two operations was a bit more prophetic than I expected. In the wake of the latest Wikileaks saga, Operation Payback is getting attention for pointing its DDoS takedown efforts on Visa and MasterCard for their decision to disallow any payments to Wikileaks via their cards.

I still disagree with the tactics of Operation Payback -- which I fear will be counterproductive and could lead many people to think this is all about some "rowdy kids" rather than people with a serious agenda. However, it is rather telling how much attention they're getting. The folks behind Operation Payback point out that they're not affiliated with Wikileaks, but:

We fight for the same reasons. We want transparency and we counter censorship. The attempts to silence WikiLeaks are long strides closer to a world where we can not say what we think and are unable to express our opinions and ideas.

Again, I'm struck by the simple split many have here: it really is an argument between those who believe in distributed and open vs. centralized and closed -- and I'm still not sure if the folks supporting centralized and closed even realize this. Their response, to date, has been to act as if they're fighting a centralized system. They focus on things like Wikileaks' domain and its founder -- as if that's the issue. They target the centralized pieces. And even if you make the argument that Wikileaks needs Julian Assange to stay together, if it were to shut down, it wouldn't take long for a ton of other, similar offerings to spring up in its place. And, they would probably be even more effective (and potentially more damaging).

While I don't necessarily like "war" analogies, what we're seeing is very much a battle between the way people want to see information flow, and one side seems to be still fighting the last war.

Filed Under: anonymous, centralized, closed, distributed, open, operation payback, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

FBI Apparently Investigating Anonymous' 'Operation Payback' Denial Of Service Attacks

from the denial-of-denial dept

We pointed out early on that the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on various pro-copyright organization websites was a dumb idea. Beyond just giving those organizations the ability to portray themselves as victims, you knew that it would just lead to them crying to law enforcement -- and so it's no surprise that the FBI is now investigating. I have no doubt that, at some point, they'll find some sort of sacrificial lamb or three which will be prosecuted, and potentially sent to jail. Some believe that once a few of those folks are sent to jail, it will scare off folks involved in these attacks, but I do wonder if going after these users is actually making the same mistake: that is, it turns them into victims, and only rallies people up. The whole thing just becomes silly, with each side attacking each other, making the other side look like victims. It's hard to get out of the cycle and focus on opportunities for moving forward. And that's really unfortunate.

Filed Under: 4chan, anonymous, ddos, denial of service, operation payback
Companies: fbi