A 17 year old boy was arrested recently because he mounted a Denial of Service attack that brought down the servers for the online version of Call of Duty.
Meanwhile, back in the real word (RL as compulsive gamers like to call it), in retribution for cutting off Wikileaks’ funding and saying unkind things about Julian Assange, hackers have mounted Denial of Service attacks on the sites of Visa, Paypal, Mastercard, the Swedish Government, Sarah Palin, and are openly advertising how others can join in the fun.
And no-one has been arrested – well, other than Julian Assange for not using a condom.
Call of Duty is a very good game – if a trifle violent – but it’s difficult not to spot the disproportionate amount of energy the law is expending on protecting on-line gamers while ignoring acts that have the potential to bring down banks and governments.
Any doubts that Wikileaks means business should be dispelled by the sight of the hardened bunkers used to house its servers:
Submarine engines converted to run a UPS:
And Wiki Elves toiling away:
Here is a report from the BBC:
[flv:https://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/videos/Wikileaks-BBC.flv 700 400]
Regardless of how they came into possession of the documents, it a a case of possession of stolen property and since WikiLeaks didn’t report the crime and return the material they are as guilty as the thieves. An enterprise like this is costly and eventually funds will choke up as routes for money get locked down. Maybe Robert Mugabe or the North Koreans will offer support.
So where does truth come into the equation? Is the protection of secrets, regardless of what those secrets may be, or the reasons for which they are bing kept, the most important thing? Is is okay to demonize and categorize as a terrorist everyone who a government claims is damaging to them? I’m not suggesting that the rule of law be abandoned, but, it seems to me that the opionion of many Christians in this whole Wiki leaks affair is shaped more by their political ideology than by the Word of God.
How is wanting to keep something secret equivalent to not telling the truth?
Just doing a passable imitation of someone who is.
Including yours as far as I can see.
I wonder if God was to raise up a modern-day Jeremiah, how he would be received – especially if he was to denounce political and religious leaders, and attack the political system of his nation? I’m not suggesting that Assange is that person, but I can’t help thinking that many in the church would feel threatened and would be happy to see him treated like a terrorist. How many would be willing to listen to someone who is suggesting changes that might threaten their economic and personal security. I’m just wondering.
If your latter day Jeremiah were a politically tendentious wiki-prophet-manqué then he would deserve to be at best ignored.
There are Jeremiahs in the African Anglican Church; they deserve to be listened to – and they are.
I like lots of others have signed the Official Secrets Act, by which I’m still bound. We may not agree with what is kept secret but this is bulk theft of material with no other probable motivation that something within would be embarrassing. I agree that some whistle-blowing has it’s place but usually it is kept within an organization. Would Warren be pleased if someone dumped all his personal correspondence onto the Internet. I’m not a fan of truth at all costs especially if it puts someone at risk. Should the phone-book include occupation and orientations? We have the right to a degree of privacy and governments have a right expect a little of the same. So I think Danny Williams is an arrogant twit, but unless Wiki-L comes in here, thats our secret.
As I said elsewhere, I’m not advocating an abandonment of the rule of law. But, in my serpentine way of thinking, I’m trying to separate criminal acts of theft – which deserve to be punished – with the question of whether certain information should remain hidden (maybe for good reason, or maybe for very questionable reason) or if the greater good of humanity is served by it being exposed. I would not be pleased if my secrets were dumped on the Internet – but I’m interested in more than whether or not I would be pleased. Maybe, if some ugly secrets were revealed – secrets that I would not reveal on my own – it would ultimately be for my betterment (although there may be considerable pain along the way). There is an obvious and necessary need for protection of both private and government information, but I don’t doubt for a second that governments too often hide things for dishonourable reasons. If we too vigorously attack all those who expose things, and automatically assign the worst possible motivations to them, I think we play into the hands of those keeping secrets that should be exposed and ultimately beggar ourselves and our society.
I shall look forward to the WarrenLeaks.
If this was back in WWII Julian would have received a chest full of lead at sunrise. Notice he doesn’t reveal documents from countries who would have no problem with eliminating. The US basically controls Internet addresses it would take little effort the bring down sites by rerouting IP’s to the pay-phone at Greyhound
So it’s really more about power, and who controls it, than truth?
The person who downloaded the information in the first place was engaged in an act of deception; truth had nothing to do with it. Assange is engaged in an act of sabotage; truth has nothing to do with that either.
You seem to be equating telling the truth with stealing someone else’s confidential communications and publishing it for all to see. Based on that, every government meeting, every church council meeting, every private telephone conversation is fair game for public exposure in the name of “truth”.
Perhaps I should forward all my spam to you in the interest of “truth”.
Set aside, for a moment, the question of how the information was revealed. Now that it is public, are you arguing that the governments and authorities involved were morally justified in keeping all this information hidden? Your whole perspective seems to be that, the less people know, the better off they’ll be, and the more the greater good will be served. Big brother knows best and everyone should just implicitly trust what he says. Society must be protected from all external threats; no matter the cost.
I know I should just wander away from this blog – and probably will – but some of what you say is so ridiculously one sided I just can’t seem to help myself (my bad). I dislike propoganda and sweeping (and disdainful) dismissal of ideas – regardless of the perspective from which it comes. I don’t want to be the guy always shooting things down from such a distance that can’t recognize any more than the faintest outline. Some people get more set in their ways as they grow older, and I suppose I suffer from that in certain areas. I hope, however, that I will not do so in the realm of ideas. I hold to Scriptural inerrancy, but there are many other things on which I have not made up my mind – or I recognize that I don’t have nearly enough knowledge or wisdom to make a proper judgement – and I want to pause long enough to consider the other side. Rants generally make me suspicious that the person making them is close minded and largely impervious to reason.
I do enjoy much of what you write, though, and hope you don’t turn into another Stand Firm; which is often little more than the sound of one hand clapping. A bunch of clones who reinforce each other and quickly run off anyone with a disenting view.
No. I don’t think exposing government corruption is a bad thing; I wouldn’t argue, for example, that Watergate should not have come to light.
The difference between that and what has happened here, though, is that Watergate was the selective exposure of government corruption with the – at least partial – intent of removing the corruption and discouraging those in power of abusing their position in the future. It served to strengthen order and democracy.
Wikileaks is the indiscriminate exposure of every communication that Bradley Manning could lay his hands on. It is being distributed – I even saw the whole 7gb in coded binary on Usenet last night – for the sole reason of undermining and embarrassing the US. It’s not inconceivable that by my Watergate standard some parts should be released but that’s not what’s happening.
From my perspective, taking a side on some issues is a less inflexible, black and white attitude than the one you claim to hold. I think, for instance, that the US, for all its faults, is presently the most effective bulwark against the barbarian hordes that will, no doubt, eventually overrun the West. Your position, while having the appearance of being uncontaminated by the exigencies of having to decide to support something that is less than perfect, is more unbending, aloof and, ultimately, I think, more damaging.
I have a high view of the sovereignty of God and don’t lose sleep over the barbarian hoardes. I think some of my neighbours are barbarians – and they probably think the same of me (many Americans have a strong distrust of anyone who endorses any form of gun control). I’m called to love them anyway.
Warren,
In spite of your flaws -and because of mine -I love you brother.
Peace,
Jim
Much appreciated, Jim. I enjoy interacting with you and certainly consider you a brother in Christ.
Here’s a conservative I agree with:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Ron-Paul-Vigorously-Defends-WikiLeaks-2734/
I, on the other hand, agree with Theodore Dalrymple who said:
Theodore Dalrymple may well be right.
Personally, I think that David coined the word “wikiwonky”, and the whole post was simply an excuse to use it. 🙂
I know – lighten up, right?
I’ve been rumbled.
Ha!