So, uh, let me try to understand the whole debacle. America (and several concerned parties) have essentially abandoned the idea of laws, and have just said "Wikilinks is bad, they must be stopped." And, uh, 4chan is saying, "no, no, you have to follow the laws you've made."Well look man, the whole "law making process" just can't keep up with the wild and wool cyberwar battle topology which operates on "internet time". It's much more straightforward to do whatever now and then retroactively immunize yourself and/or use diplomatic pressure to prevent foreign prosecutions.
FROM: ASTANA, KAZAKHSTANposted by jokeefe at 1:14 AM on December 9, 2010 [33 favorites]
TO: STATE DEPARTMENT
DATE: APRIL 17, 2008
CLASSIFICATION: CONFIDENTIAL
Saudabayev has twice hosted visiting USG officials for a meal at Mashkevich's Astana residence -- both times without Mashkevich. It is not clear what Mashkevich is spending his billions on, but it is certainly not culinary talent. On all four occasions the Ambassador has eaten at one of his houses, the menu has been similar and focused on beshparmak (boiled meat and noodles) and plov. The wait staff appeared to be graduates of a Soviet cafeteria training academy. The wine, at least, was somewhat upscale with reasonably good French vintage bottles uncorked for the guests. The Astana residence has wooden plaques on the doors that would fit in nicely in a Wyoming hunting lodge but are somewhat out of touch with the upscale "Euro-remont" that is so popular among the Kazakhstani elite.
Attacks against civilian infrastructure with the intent of causing collateral damage to make a point seem a bit too close to terrorism for my liking. I don't think that this sort of thing should be encouraged or hailed as heroic.The basic point of terrorism is to terrify. The word your looking for is (listen all y'all it's) sabotage.
About ten people, called “OPs”, are able to launch an attack. If any OP abuses his power—if he fails to heed what anons call “the hive mind” in IRC conversations— the other OPs can lock him out of the chat. If any anon fails to be inspired by the target, she can remove her own computer from the volunteer botnet, reducing its effect. Anonymous is a 24-hour Athenian democracy, run by a quorum of whoever happens to be awake.posted by memebake at 4:02 AM on December 9, 2010 [23 favorites]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.posted by notion at 5:12 AM on December 9, 2010 [89 favorites]
-The Declaration of Independence
Muddler: ...so Wikileaks (and anon) USE THE SAME FUCKING JUSTIFICATIONS OF ENDS JUSTIFYING THE MEANS TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT REGARDLESS OF MORALS, LAWS OR THOSE INNOCENTS THAT ARE IMPACTED.At this time, as far as I know, not even the US government has made any formal claim that Wikileaks has either broken any specific laws or harmed any specific innocents. That's exactly why so many people are outraged over the Wikileaks story; the push-back by governments has come almost entirely in the form of shady, extra-legal subterfuge and behind-the-scenes political pressure. Which is exactly the sort of hypocritical, subversive, anti-democratic behavior that Wikileaks generally seeks to expose, ironically enough.
acb: Attacks against civilian infrastructure with the intent of causing collateral damage to make a point seem a bit too close to terrorism for my liking.As far as I'm concerned (and as far as my dictionary is concerned, for whatever that's worth) "terrorism" involves actual violence to or the killing of human beings.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
acb: One could theoretically imagine the denial of payment facilities having life-threatening consequences; for example, someone depending on the ability to use a credit card to book a hotel room for the night, and not having cash as an alternative, or being unable to top up a mobile phone or pay an electricity bill.Yes, but there are often genuine life-threatening consequences for many innocuous acts that we don't think of as "terrorism." Every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you're taking a risk that you'll kill someone in a very direct and violent way. But as that's not the intent of driving we don't call it "road terrorism."
Cutting off someone's access to payment mechanisms is fucking with their means of support in a pretty serious way, much like cutting telephone lines or blowing up power stations. It's not the same as mass-casualty bomb attacks, but the degree of threat to life and wellbeing is not zero either.Okay, but the only really effective cut-off of payment mechanisms in this story was imposed by Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and some banks against Wikileaks and Assange's defense fund. That was a direct, targeted attack on one individual's well being, and it appears it was done at the behest of the US government. If we call Visa or the Feds "terrorists" we'll get laughed at, though.
A spokesman for the group, a 22-year-old from London who called himself Coldblood, told the Guardian it was acting for the "chaotic good" in defence of internet freedom of speech. It has been distributing software tools to allow anyone with a computer and an internet connection to join in the attacks.So now The Telegraph is riffing off its competition and reinforcing an Anonymous statement about itself.
$ shasum -a 1 /Volumes/Big/Downloads/insurance.aes256 cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c /Volumes/Big/Downloads/insurance.aes256 $ $ ./aescrypt -d -p TGT315Q3GAE3632QGAEEWT3A6 /Volumes/Big/Downloads/insurance.aes256 Error: Bad file header (not aescrypt file or is corrupted? [53, 61, 6c])So, to me it looks like this is the right SHA-1 checksum, but the file appears (!) not to be an AES file according to AESCrypt, or the decryption key is wrong.
This seems like it can't possibly be for real. Techie opinions?That code repeatedly does an HTTP GET on any website by setting <img> tag's src (so that the browser loads requests in parallel) to that website's url along with a random number (so that the request avoids caching by generating unique urls).
Most browsers are capped on the amount of network threads that can be opened by default. I assume that's why that site's default is 10.Firefox 3 beta 4 and earlier defaulted to 8 http requests per server, but later versions upped this to 15. IE has similar numbers.
MOSCOW, 1988 — They came from the far ends of the Soviet Union--human rights activists and Jewish refuseniks, veterans of labor camps and Siberian exile and the wives and children of some still imprisoned--to hear the American President praise their courage and urge them on.posted by notion at 5:18 PM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
In one of the more unusual meetings held during a U.S.-Soviet summit, the hard core of the Soviet human rights movement spent nearly an hour with President and Mrs. Reagan at Spaso House, the U.S. ambassador's residence. They emerged praising the American chief executive as a bulwark of freedom.
"We saw from the forthright words of the President that human rights for him is not simply a formality but that it really touches his heart," said Father Gleb Yakunin, a Russian Orthodox priest. . .
"I came here to give you strength, but it is you who have strengthened me," the President told his 96 invited guests, who responded several times with applause. "While we press for human lives through diplomatic channels, you press with your very lives, day in and day out, year after year, risking your homes, your jobs and your all.". . .
Soviet officials criticized the meeting, suggesting that it was a lapse of protocol to meet with citizens that the host state considers troublemakers at best. Gorbachev, toasting the Reagans at a state dinner in the Kremlin, noted that the Soviet government "wants to build contacts among people in all forums."
But in conveying his own perspective on human rights, Gorbachev pointedly added that "this should be done without interfering in domestic affairs, without sermonizing or imposing one's views and ways, without turning family or personal problems into a pretext for confrontation between states."
==========================posted by Anything at 8:53 PM on December 9, 2010
|| HIVEMIND/HIDDEN MODE ||
==========================
HIVE MIND mode will connect your client to an IRC server so it can be controlled
remotely. Think of it like a voluntary botnet. They might even make your client
do naughty things, so beware.
2. (S/NF) Mubarak is 81 years old and in reasonably good health. . . He is a tried and true realist, innately cautious and conservative, and has little time for idealistic goals. Mubarak viewed President Bush (43) as naive, controlled by subordinates, and totally unprepared for dealing with post-Saddam Iraq, especially the rise of Iran,s regional influence.Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to undeniable reality: we have the same foreign policy objectives and principles as an Egyptian dictator.
3. (S/NF) On several occasions Mubarak has lamented the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the downfall of Saddam. He routinely notes that Egypt did not like Saddam and does not mourn him, but at least he held the country together and countered Iran. Mubarak continues to state that in his view Iraq needs a "tough, strong military officer who is fair" as leader. This telling observation, we believe, describes Mubarak's own view of himself as someone who is tough but fair, who ensures the basic needs of his people.
4. (S/NF) No issue demonstrates Mubarak,s worldview more than his reaction to demands that he open Egypt to genuine political competition and loosen the pervasive control of the security services. Certainly the public "name and shame" approach in recent years strengthened his determination not to accommodate our views. However, even though he will be more willing to consider ideas and steps he might take pursuant to a less public dialogue, his basic understanding of his country and the region predisposes him toward extreme caution. We have heard him lament the results of earlier U.S. efforts to encourage reform in the Islamic world. He can harken back to the Shah of Iran: the U.S. encouraged him to accept reforms, only to watch the country fall into the hands of revolutionary religious extremists. Wherever he has seen these U.S. efforts, he can point to the chaos and loss of stability that ensued. In addition to Iraq, he also reminds us that he warned against Palestinian elections in 2006 that brought Hamas (Iran) to his doorstep. Now, we understand he fears that Pakistan is on the brink of falling into the hands of the Taliban, and he puts some of the blame on U.S. insistence on steps that ultimately weakened Musharraf. While he knows that Bashir in Sudan has made multiple major mistakes, he cannot work to support his removal from power.
5. (S/NF) Mubarak has no single confidante or advisor who can truly speak for him, and he has prevented any of his main advisors from operating outside their strictly circumscribed spheres of power. Defense Minister Tantawi keeps the Armed Forces appearing reasonably sharp and the officers satisfied with their perks and privileges, and Mubarak does not appear concerned that these forces are not well prepared to face 21st century external threats. EGIS Chief Omar Soliman and Interior Minister al-Adly keep the domestic beasts at bay, and Mubarak is not one to lose sleep over their tactics. Gamal Mubarak and a handful of economic ministers have input on economic and trade matters, but Mubarak will likely resist further economic reform if he views it as potentially harmful to public order and stability. Dr. Zakaria Azmi and a few other senior NDP leaders manage the parliament and public politics.
6. (S/NF) Mubarak is a classic Egyptian secularist who hates religious extremism and interference in politics. The Muslim Brothers represent the worst, as they challenge not only Mubarak,s power, but his view of Egyptian interests. As with regional issues, Mubarak, seeks to avoid conflict and spare his people from the violence he predicts would emerge from unleashed personal and civil liberties. In Mubarak,s mind, it is far better to let a few individuals suffer than risk chaos for society as a whole. He has been supportive of improvements in human rights in areas that do not affect public security or stability. Mrs. Mubarak has been given a great deal of room to maneuver to advance women's and children's rights and to confront some traditional practices that have been championed by the Islamists, such as FGM, child labor, and restrictive personal status laws.
Starting around 1997, he co-invented the Rubberhose deniable encryption system, a cryptographic concept made into a software package for Linux designed to provide plausible deniability against rubber-hose cryptanalysis; he originally intended the system to be used "as a tool for human rights workers who needed to protect sensitive data in the field."Imagine this scenario: What if, encoded in the "random characters" layed out by such a program, there was hidden a wad of spyware that could phone home whenever a connection to the internet was detected? I.e., what if such security software, ostensibly designed to protect its users by obfuscating their data, were in actual fact rogue security software, designed to exploit its users by stealing their data? What could be more ripe for the picking than whatever's so valuable that it needs to be protected against torture? What would that information look like? What would it contain?
...and...
Rubberhose works by initially writing random characters to an entire hard drive or other dynamic storage device. This random noise is indistinguishable from the encrypted data to be stored on that disk.
...plus...
The project was originally named Rubberhose, as it was designed to be resistant to attacks by people willing to use torture on those who knew the encryption keys.
...(more on that)
As you may know I normally target Jihadist sites, but recently turned my attentions to Wikileaks.posted by memebake at 4:12 PM on December 12, 2010
So what was I thinking?
Initially, hitting Wikileaks servers hosted by OWNI (France), PRQ (Sweden), and BAHNHOF with ease, had the desired outcome of ‘coralling’ the Wikileaks operation onto a US hosted platform that could resist XerXeS – Amazon EC2.
The WL perceived victory was short-lived as enough pressure was now building both politically and technically (by that I mean service providers were aware that WL was now a prime target and couldn’t risk their own operations by providing services to WL).
As predicted, providers to WL started dropping them – first EveryDNS, then Amazon, then Paypal and Mastercard soon followed. The service providers acted as a force-multiplier, leaving the Wikileaks name nowhere to go except rely on volunteer mirrors.
So the head of the snake is almost cut off. The Wikileaks name is something few people, as far as service providers, will deal with. Their supply chain is being cut off.
« Older An opinion piece in Slate argues that the scientif... | How 2000AD artist and MS suffe... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by iamkimiam at 12:10 AM on December 9, 2010 [15 favorites]