Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-16-2010, 11:58 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-16-2010, 12:43 PM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

The Society of the Spectacle

Quote:
This is the principle of commodity fetishism, the domination of society by "intangible as well as tangible things," which reaches its absolute fulfillment in the spectacle, where the tangible world is replaced by a selection of images which exist above it, and which simultaneously impose themselves as the tangible.

Last edited by Ken Davis; 12-16-2010 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-16-2010, 04:04 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Ms. Fitzgerald and our Bob

Thanks for a thought-provoking dv.

CF, will you please send a link to some of your articles about how terms of service impedes free speech?

Bob it was surprising to hear you respond that people could post their negative comments on sites other than whitehouse.gov, if the whitehouse.gov site rejected them. You didn't seem to have a problem with that.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-16-2010, 04:14 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Davis View Post
Very interesting. I read/skimmed that chapter.

How does this relate to the Technium, I wonder. If the prophet Kelly (pbuh) is correct, this could simply be a 'fearsome fours' stage we're going through...on the way to higher intelligence being developed by the universe. That we'll be blended/cyborged into.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-16-2010, 04:17 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Is anyone actually covering the content of the leaked documents? Everywhere I look everything is being covered by the righteousness (Or lack thereof) of Julian Assange angle.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-16-2010, 04:20 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default ps

Keep on the sunny side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIcb9...eature=related
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-16-2010, 05:00 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
Is anyone actually covering the content of the leaked documents?
No. Things like facts matter only to the "little people," those with a drone missile shard across their skull or a tent city address. For them life is something full of "facts," hard facts. But for journalists and pundits, facts don't exist. The only thing that matters is the messenger and other people's interpretation of who Assange is. What's his motivation? What does his relation with women tell us about his psyche? Is he an anarchist?

Speaking of the Pentagon papers. Funny no one bothers to discuss what was in them. We only care to know if A is like B. But no one cares what A or B actually is. The Pentagon Papers and Richard Holbrooke were both in the spotlight this week. And nowhere did I see it mentioned that Holbrooke wrote the damn Pentagon Papers (as a bastard-in-training, I guess). That's because no one gives a flying crap about facts. All that matters is who reports them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-16-2010, 05:12 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

And isn't it interesting that the previous wikileaks dumps were met with little more than a shrug (only about things like 15,000 uncounted cadavers and torture chambers stamped with the US seal of approval... nothing to see here, move along). But reveal to the world that US diplomats think Berlusconi has a small dick, and the Village has a hissy fit! Quite telling.

Thank god the Village has the brave Cathy Fitzpatrick to defend them!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-16-2010, 06:38 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Why I support wikileaks. Cables show diplomats discussing the Afghanistan war as a "trainwreck" and a lost cause.

But today Obama says: "The United States is on track to achieve its goals in Afghanistan."

Say what? So not only do we know the SOB is lying through his teeth but we now have the evidence!

But sorry I interrupted Assange's public psychoanalysis.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-16-2010, 07:09 PM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

All this talk of what was "stolen". Stolen from whom? Whose government are we talking about here? Who owns the damned thing? Who picks up the tab? You may want your government to keep secrets from you, but I sure as hell don't, and I mean none.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-16-2010, 07:09 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
How does this relate to the Technium, I wonder....That we'll be blended/cyborged into.
I think one of Kelley's main points is that we are already cyborgs in that we have shaped our evolution with our technology and continue to do so i.e to be human is to be a product of the interplay of biology and technology.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-16-2010, 07:15 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
The Pentagon Papers and Richard Holbrooke were both in the spotlight this week. And nowhere did I see it mentioned that Holbrooke wrote the damn Pentagon Papers (as a bastard-in-training, I guess).
Holbrooke contributed to a section of the Pentagon Papers. That certainly doesn't make him a bastard-in-training.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-16-2010, 07:31 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Davis View Post
You may want your government to keep secrets from you, but I sure as hell don't, and I mean none.
Wow, the crazies are out tonight. I never heard anyone, left or right, suggest that diplomatic work shouldn't be confidential.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-16-2010, 09:24 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Holbrooke contributed to a section of the Pentagon Papers. That certainly doesn't make him a bastard-in-training.
You mean that just makes him a bastard. Yes, I see your point.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-16-2010, 09:32 PM
Catherine Fitzpatrick Catherine Fitzpatrick is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

@look Most broadly, I've written about this problem here, citing relevant Supreme Court cases:

http://www.rferl.org/content/Faceboo...r/2054367.html

I've written constantly on the subject of the TOS and games and virtual worlds (like Second Life) subject at secondthoughts.typepad.com

At Second Life, I've been banned for my criticial speech about the company itself and its system of no-bid contract favouritism, etc. from the JIRA (bug tracker), Concierge List for server renters, and was banned from the company forums for many years (until a change in management), I've written about this extensively:

http://www.secretlair.com/index.php?...gitator_again/
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/se...ng-the-ji.html
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/se...33ecbce22a970b

An interview with me in Wired, and a discussion of the same issues we face today with WikiLeaks, involving the same online vandals from 4chan:

http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualw...?currentPage=3

I think that government websites should not have corporate-like TOS for purposes of "civility" and should enforce the First Amendment (they of all people) and not take the position that it is "provided for" somewhere else on someone's blog -- because those blogs are captive of private platform providers that have restrictive TOS, too. The government must accept any and all comment that doesn't constitute an imminent incitement to violent action per Supreme Court rulings, or libel, as already found by a court of law in a ruling against speech. Other than that, the myriad birthers, insider-jobbers, dopers, Tea-baggers, etc. etc. can merely be filed to top forums or even "rant" forums and left alone. I'm not for making their comments disappear if voted down; I'm not for censoring or moderating them; they should be left alone.

@heatfish In this interview, I extensively explained the context of the Pentagon Papers, which isn't just that it was a group decision -- it wasn't. A group was involved in the original McNamara study; the decision to leak it may have only been made by one or two people. My explanation for how it differs is that it was about a conscious matter, with a context, and with a conscience, and deliberate. WikiLeaks happened because of a machine function -- vulnerability to a hack caused by negligence or the theory of the network itself plus a vengeful employee dumping as much as possible to be destruction -- without apparent conscience or context that we can discern. In my post about this debate, I've explored this more.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_s...wikileaks.html

I don't think I've ever been described as being on the "loony left", so thanks. I think McNamara (who later resigned) and other officials found the Vietnam War immoral and injustified, and that motivated first their study, a kind of early wiki all itself, you might say, and then the leaking of it to amplify it. I think there would be situations of conscience where government officials would whistleblow; indeed the U.S. government protection of whistleblowers under law protects that. While there are certain aspects of the Iraq and Afghan wars that warrant acts of conscience to leak information (which has been done long before WikiLeaks), on the whole, I can't concede that a wholesale leakage and worldwide campaign to bring down the U.S. government by forcing it to close and become "stupid" (Assange's avowed aim) is indeed warranted. These wars are unconscionable; I'm not for using unconscionable methods to stop them. Indeed it doesn't work, because the Iraqi war video, which many who cared a lot more about journalists under fire than Assange ever did wrote about for years, didn't stop the war one whit.

@Starwatcher and @ohreally

I covered the content; I've writte 7 articles on WikiLeaks cables. I'm very big on content. Indeed, my covering of the important context of these cables from my expertise is what enables me to examine this process better and ultimately condemn the WikiLeaks methods:

http://www.eurasianet.org/taxonomy/term/2920
http://www.eurasianet.org/voices/choihona

I didn't shrug about the last WikiLeaks from Kenya and Iraq and so on, not at all. But it's material that's a huge grab bag and doesn't say what you claim. Those 15,000 unaccounted people weren't killed by the U.S. -- they were killed by Iraqi militants and terrorists supported from other countries like Iran. The U.S. sponsored torture and that's to be condemned naturally, but have you been in an Iranian prison lately? This is what I mean by the facile moral smugness of the hard left that doesn't have a plan for how to address terrorism except an isolationist Fortress America.

@Ken Davis government is elected, and has rules that are under the rule of law with checks and balances, so when they decide to classify governments, I don't take issue with that as a process; it's legitimate. What isn't legitimate is stealing those dox with intent to harm. I think my elected government with FOIA capacity and Gov 2.0 features even is to be preferred, with all its flaws, that the anarchist cooperative WikiLeaks, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-16-2010, 10:11 PM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Wow, the crazies are out tonight. I never heard anyone, left or right, suggest that diplomatic work shouldn't be confidential.
I've never heard anyone suggest that all diplomatic work is legitimate.

And I'm not out tonight, I'm iced in.

Last edited by Ken Davis; 12-16-2010 at 10:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-17-2010, 02:03 AM
mrdomino mrdomino is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Uh-2 things that jumped out at me as a casual observer.

Why were Bob and Catherine talking about how it must be a "conspiracy" or "coincidence" for the Mastercard revelations/4chan/Guardian article all to coincide? Isn't the storyline:

1.) Mastercard pulls availability of financial support for wikileaks (paypal ect) on Dec. 7
2.) Wikileaks gets mad and reveals incriminating documents against them. Dec. 8 They post a new cable on their website which only has 1k or so of the cables up.(Julian Assange recently said "We now know that Visa, Mastercard and Paypal are instruments of foreign policy.")
3.) 4chan hackers attack paypal, Mastercard ect. Dec. 8
4.) Seeing the Wikileaks-Credit Card beef, some enterprising Guardian reporter says "today, lets talk about Wikileaks and credit card companies" with the purest of intentions. Hell, the article itself points out that wikileaks just released this cable "A state department cable released this afternoon by WikiLeaks..." By released they don't mean "showed us for the first time" I assume they mean "its now up on their website with the other 1% of released cables." (IIRC they originally dumped 700 cables on their website and now its close to 1k so they are controlling the news cycle by slowly adding more cables to their site.)

The correlation seems obvious to me. It strikes me as neither pure coincidence or conspiracy. Catherine's claim is Wikileaks is leaking stuff that hurts Mastercard...after Mastercard hurt them. If the cable was not on wikileaks website December 6th but was on December 8th that seems correct. Julian Assange and the Guardian don't have some sort of secret deal-Wikileaks is just trying to control the news cycle by slowly releasing new cables on their website. Does anyone think Assange would say what he said about Paypal and Mastercard...if they were still providing him with financial support

Secondly-why does Bob think Manning wasn't a "hacker?" Didn't he access a network he was not supposed to have access to, via the help of 2 MIT students?

Last edited by mrdomino; 12-17-2010 at 02:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:52 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

I really appreciate Bob's innocent, but proven guilty stance on Assange. Catherine's obviously an expert, but she seems to be projecting too much evil on Assange that could have alternative plausible explanations. I'm withholding judgment on wikiman for now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdomino View Post
Secondly-why does Bob think Manning wasn't a "hacker?" Didn't he access a network he was not supposed to have access to, via the help of 2 MIT students?
I don't even think it matters how Manning got the docs. Whether he did a copy/paste or a sophisticated hack, he still had intent, and presumably under the jurisdiction of military law, will be imprisoned for a long time. The only way it matters is if Assange had a hand in executing the document stealing.

Last edited by sugarkang; 12-17-2010 at 03:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-17-2010, 09:38 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

This sounds about right to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post

I think that government websites should not have corporate-like TOS for purposes of "civility" and should enforce the First Amendment (they of all people) and not take the position that it is "provided for" somewhere else on someone's blog -- because those blogs are captive of private platform providers that have restrictive TOS, too. The government must accept any and all comment that doesn't constitute an imminent incitement to violent action per Supreme Court rulings, or libel, as already found by a court of law in a ruling against speech.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-17-2010, 09:51 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Ms. Fitzgerald and our Bob

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Thanks for a thought-provoking dv.

CF, will you please send a link to some of your articles about how terms of service impedes free speech?

Bob it was surprising to hear you respond that people could post their negative comments on sites other than whitehouse.gov, if the whitehouse.gov site rejected them. You didn't seem to have a problem with that.
subversive yet subtle.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-17-2010, 09:58 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post
I think that government websites should not have corporate-like TOS for purposes of "civility" and should enforce the First Amendment (they of all people) and not take the position that it is "provided for" somewhere else on someone's blog -- because those blogs are captive of private platform providers that have restrictive TOS, too. The government must accept any and all comment that doesn't constitute an imminent incitement to violent action per Supreme Court rulings, or libel, as already found by a court of law in a ruling against speech. Other than that, the myriad birthers, insider-jobbers, dopers, Tea-baggers, etc. etc. can merely be filed to top forums or even "rant" forums and left alone. I'm not for making their comments disappear if voted down; I'm not for censoring or moderating them; they should be left alone.
This makes no sense to me at all. It's just too easy to post offensive material. Reading unmoderated comments is like watching someone spray-paint "I hate blacks" on the side of the Lincoln Memorial. Free speech, right? Even a such a paragon of discourse as BH.tv deals with offensive comments. The problem is more acute with a .gov site, because it must be friendly and accessible to everyone - including children.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 12-17-2010 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-17-2010, 10:09 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Davis View Post
I've never heard anyone suggest that all diplomatic work is legitimate.

And I'm not out tonight, I'm iced in.
global warming, eh?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-17-2010, 10:36 AM
Catherine Fitzpatrick Catherine Fitzpatrick is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

I didn't say it "must be a conspiracy". Bob started in goading me with that notion, trying to get me to say it was a conspiracy.

I said *we have to ask the question* if we're to get this responsible journalism that everyone claims we're getting when WikiLeaks, which I view as an anarchist agitprop operation, tries to sanitize itself through left-wing newspapers like the Guardian that tell us they will now handle the material professionally.

Saying there's 250,000 cables and that's "too many to look through" is silly in the age of instantly searchable data bases. There are cables here that go back to 1966 and up to 2010. Obviously to leak the first set of cables on Russia, they picked out certain ones that they thought were "sensational" -- or who knows what they thought (they aren't telling us how they make these cuts).

The question must be asked again and again: why didn't they release all the cables at once? Is that because have to be "analyzed" for "context"? But I don't see that happening. While the Guardian is doing a good job of reporting out the cables, they aren't providing any particular insights other than links to their own past news stories to broad topics.

So if they didn't include this ostensibly damning cable on the first cut -- why only on the day of the Mastercard attack?! There are two possibilities, and I was mainly asking questions about the first, but certain not shying away from asking about the second: a) Guardian reporters are being instrumental and opportunistic for the sake of the anarchist/leftist cause of WikiLeaks by timing their leakage to events that give it maximum sensation (and this isn't just "journalis" this is very politicized journalism) -- or worse, they are witting or unwitting tools in a plan to stage a revolution with certain "active measures". I think it's more than fine to ask these questions without having to don a tinfoil hat.

And my point is precisely that the cable was NOT on WikiLeaks site until AFTER the attack on MasterCard! I've studied extensively every single Eurasian capital's set of cables on the main WikiLeaks site or its mirrors, and on the Guardian. And it wasn't on there before the attacks. So it was opportunistic!

@Simon Willard

Well, then the First Amendment doesn't make sense to you, because under the First Amendment, you get to say that -- and worse. And people do all the time on Yahoo -- until they are abuse reported and the mods take down the content. So where do you think the First Amendment is going to take place in our time? I'm not worried about its erosion because Amazon takes down WikiLeaks -- not after Harold Koh's letter that an investigation for probable cause of a crime of stealing classified documents harming national security is underway, and not after the obvious TOS violation that for storing stolen material. Nobody questions that it was stolen!

But I am concerned when people have no where to talk frankly and use legal and constitutionally protected ad hominem attacks to their hearts' content. I'm not talking about the requirement to listen -- that's not a First Amendment good. But I do think all government sites have to tolerate speech as much as Yahoo does, and that means rerouting things like racist or obscene chat into bins of "rants" or "OMGODZORS" files but not deleting them.

There are plenty of software programs that help you moderate without censoring. And if a simple thing like requiring Facebook log-in or registration with a real name were used, that would decrease incivility. The idea that dissent has to be protected by anonymity doesn't really cut it for me because before the Internet, if people wanted to protest, they had to show their faces in a demonstration or write a signed letter to the editor of a newspaper.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-17-2010, 12:04 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post
a) Guardian reporters are being instrumental and opportunistic for the sake of the anarchist/leftist cause of WikiLeaks by timing their leakage to events that give it maximum sensation (and this isn't just "journalis" this is very politicized journalism) -- or worse, they are witting or unwitting tools in a plan to stage a revolution with certain "active measures". I think it's more than fine to ask these questions without having to don a tinfoil hat.
So we should examine whether the Guardian might a witting tool in a plan to stage a revolution with certain "active measures." But no tinfoil hat needed... Of course not.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-17-2010, 12:33 PM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
global warming, eh?
Something like that. I think the correct term is "global climate change".
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-17-2010, 12:49 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post
But I am concerned when people have no where to talk frankly and use legal and constitutionally protected ad hominem attacks to their hearts' content. I'm not talking about the requirement to listen -- that's not a First Amendment good. But I do think all government sites have to tolerate speech as much as Yahoo does, and that means rerouting things like racist or obscene chat into bins of "rants" or "OMGODZORS" files but not deleting them.
One question comes to mind: what constitutes a "site"? Suppose the government, to address your concerns, sets up a free, unmoderated site at www.discussion.gov where all constitutionally protected speech is allowed. Presumably that would not satisfy you; serious people would not go there, and you want to be able to post advice and criticism on the www.whitehouse.gov domain.

Yet when I am elected president, I want to exercise control over all content on the whitehouse.gov site during my 4 years in office. I will view it as an extension of myself, my policies, aspirations, image, etc. I will view it the same way an author views his book. I won't want people scrawling graffiti on the site anymore than I want kids throwing mud in my living room.

The question is, how close should commenters get to the real content on a goverment site? Can they be buried in some hard-to-find page? Surely you can't have comments on every web page.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 12-17-2010 at 03:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-17-2010, 12:57 PM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post
@Ken Davis government is elected, and has rules that are under the rule of law with checks and balances, so when they decide to classify governments, I don't take issue with that as a process; it's legitimate. What isn't legitimate is stealing those dox with intent to harm. I think my elected government with FOIA capacity and Gov 2.0 features even is to be preferred, with all its flaws, that the anarchist cooperative WikiLeaks, thanks.
Is is not possible that, in spite of the vast access to the inner workings of our government by virtue of FOIA, and the wonderful innovation on the horizon which will complete our lives due to Gov 2.0, that the government might classify documentation of actions which are beyond the rule of law? Is that just a chance we have to take? Is it legitimate to "steal" those documents for "harm"?

Is anarchy the flip side of the status quo?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-17-2010, 03:06 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post
What isn't legitimate is stealing those dox with intent to harm.
Intent to harm! That's pure, unadulterated, baseless calumny. Truly pathetic.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-17-2010, 06:10 PM
ohcomeon ohcomeon is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 279
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

The idea that the government spying on private citizens (wiretapping) is the same as the citizens knowing what our government employees are doing and saying is ridiculous. I am not taking the position that diplomacy doesn't need some secrecy but companies aiding the government to spy on us is of a different magnitude than wikileaks.
__________________
OhComeOnHussein
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-18-2010, 02:13 AM
jacks_mind jacks_mind is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 42
Default ddos ≈ sit-ins without buying

I love the doublespeak that I've heard on this issue so far:

+DDOS causes serious damage
-DDOS isn't effective because the websites are back up in a matter of hours

+real civil disobedience means that people are willing to get caught, not anonymous strangers behind their computers
-oh you better not do this, because people know your IP and so they will arrest you (2 hackers so far)

+if a 20 civil rights activists sat at a counter and didn't buy they were furthering the cause
-if a group of hackers DDOS a server for a few hours, this is morally reprehensible

-if you cause financial damage with your protest then this is wrong
+ well i guess these people didn't get the message:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott
http://thenagain.info/webchron/India/SaltMarch.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in#...ights_Movement
(Patrons unable to find seats --> depriving diner of money)


IF DDOS really doesn't cause any serious damage (I realize this may be a big if), I don't see how this can't be a valid means of protest. Yes, I am prepared to lose access to a few of my favorite sites once in a while. There most certainly isn't anything wrong with a DDOS in principle. If they were attacking a server belonging to a Hitler-like dictatory they would be heroes, people wouldn't be saying, "Hey now, you shouldn't be DDOSing, that's wrong." Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean the act of protest is intrinsically wrong--distinguish the method of protest with the motivation.

I also have to take issue with Bob's agreement with some illogical blogger that said that only people willing to get caught are engaging in "Civil Disobedience". Can we end this Thoreau-worship once and for all. Who cares what people call it and who cares whether you are willing to go to jail for your cause. Given the chance to do what is right (assuming the particular 'civil disobedience' cause is--maybe a server of a genocidal maniac, say) and not, you would actually pick not doing it because you couldn't get caught?? Sure, the person who is willing to get caught has more integrity, but somehow the possibility of arrest influences the rightness or wrongness of an action? Give me a break. So if I was a hacker I would say, "No we are not engaging in CD, we are scared @#$@less by the prospect of going to jail, and I would never put myself up there with the likes of Rosa Parks and Ghandi--but you know what? I'm still going to do what I think is right."
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-18-2010, 03:22 AM
Catherine Fitzpatrick Catherine Fitzpatrick is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

@ohreally The Guardian has many editors and writers who would be happy to usher in a worldwide revolution fulfilling their "progressive" or even hard left ideologies, and they don't hide this -- no tinfoil required there.

@Simon Willard As it stands now, whitehouse.gov, which Gov 2.0 simps hold up as a paragon of "openness," has *no comments whatsoever open*. Not even moderated. Not even those 10 letters a day that Obama says he picks out of the fire hose and reads. It has an old template like a 1990s website in which you can send in your opinion, which merely gets you put on a keyworded spam list. No, discussion.gov would not be sufficient, but it might be a start. I'm glad we've established that you see the public discourse merely as a form of graffiti. So I don't think I'll be able to reason with you. The people have the right to seek redress to grievances. Now they've got to do this online. Where? It's no good to say that they can take a number and get in line to be no. 1,000th comment on Huffpo.

@Ken Davis Just because the government might do wrong and overclassify doesn't mean that we as journalists or the public get to use coercion and force to obtain these documents. That's why I point to the role of a conscience-driven whistleblower who *can make his case under the law* as a preferable option. You're seeing this issue in too binary a form, it's not about illegitimate secrecy versus anarchy, but about the existing legal tools there are indeed to uncover government secrets, and this wild claim from anarchists -- which I reject utterly -- that because the government over-classifies and "journalists don't do their job," they get to use force, stealth and criminality to get what they want. They don't.

The methods and the means matter because they are fiercely trying to remake the world -- and it will not be something better, as they themselves are secret. You would think the WikiLeaks crowbar were the only tool for journalism now these days, even though normal journalists still go about the work of finding sources off the record, filing FOIAs, asking the hard questions, etc. There will be no magic ecstatic transparency heaven with rainbows and unicorns.

@ohreally Calumny? Well, happy to see you in court. I think you need to read Assange's own works, which are easily Googled; read Aaron Bady's exegesis (even though he comes to a more forgiving conclusion having read them than I would) and read the New Yorker interview -- among many other texts. Assange clearly states that he intends to harm the U.S. -- that he wants to force it closed, in fact (Robert Wright aggrees with this perception in this Blogging Heads right here.) Private Manning also makes clear his intent to harm in his emails with Lamo published in Wired. It's not like there isn't ample documentation of this truth -- both of them and their co-conspirators believe that they had to stick it to the U.S., and that the U.S. is the worst thing in the world. Not only do I beg to differ; I think their diagnosis and their method are disreputable and deeply sectarian and cynical. I fail to see why we can't dissect what are obvious calls to harm just because of some fear of a "chill on speech" that *might* occur if these people are prosecuted. Sorry, I'm not going to get into the politically-correct harness here. And again, I'm not going to fall into the trap of being pushed to call for a prosecution of Assange. There will be others to do this; others to reject it. My job is to keep raising the moral condemnation of Assange and WikiLeaks because morality is what matters more in the long run.

@ohcomeon That was a neat trick, you played a three-card monte there. I'm not comparing the government unlawfully and necessarily spying on private citizens without probable cause to "the public's right to know" about their government. And note that I'm defining the wiretapping more explicitly than you are because I don't have a problem with the government having some kind of procedure, under law, with due process to search telephone records in the pursuit of suspected criminals and terrorists. You're saying that if they have probable cause and a warrant, they can't do that because of some endless need for the criminals and terrorists of the world to be kept innocent until proven guilty by their actual deeds? Sorry, I can't "go there" with you on that one.

I'm comparing the illegal wiretapping -- that indeed appears to have been overbroad -- with WikiLeaks apparent incitement and cooperation with hacking into government secret networks -- these are both morally reprehensible and both wrong. Neither is blessed by its ostensible pursuit of good. And they need not be morally equivalent, either, from either a pro- or anti-government perspective; it's enough to say that both are wrong. The public has the right to know, but that notion has never encompassed the right to expose secret sensitive diplomatic cables.

I haven't seen any evidence that companies have been pressured to spy for the government, or have actually spied for the government on WikiLeaks, so please produce it if you can.

@jacks_mind -- I think you're right to capture the double-speak out there, but I do want to reiterate that I've been very clear on this unlike the double-speakers. I'm not the one who says the DDOS "isn't effective" because the websites are back up in hours. Hell, no. I'm the one saying that's a minimizing of the story from geeks and the perpetrators themselves and their fellow-travelers. I'm all for defining the DDOS from the perspective of the victim -- I've frequently been one myself. And the victim finds even a few hours a loss, and we know that these DDOS attacks repeat and repeat and cause lots of damage.

Next, I don't think that the DDOS is wrong merely because it's anonymous, although that's part of it; we know that some DDOS advocates like Noel Hidalgo openly call for the tactic as blessed civil disobedience and openly associate their name with it. BTW, it's easy to mask the IP with a proxy, and/or use multiple wireless connections in busy areas and not be tracked ultimately.

The lunch counter protesters bought items in the store to show their good will. They would have paid for lunch had they been served, instead of discriminated against. I hardly think you could make a claim that any "business losses" of those sit-ins and bus-boycotts are really at issue -- in fact we could make the claim that by discriminating against a class of people, these businesses lost customers and business. It's hardly like the DDOS, because the sit-ins against discrimination had a framework of morality and the law that is completely unlike the anarchy and nihilism of the script kiddies. Most importantly, they did not take away others' right to speech or association. Blocking foot traffic isn't taking away speech or association; the DDOS is.

I don't think you have to prove that a DDOS "does cause serious damage" to denounce it. But I believe a) that it does b) that technologists, anarchists, leftists and apologists deliberately minimize this to fit it to their worldview and c) we should let the victims define this.

Oh, no, I refuse to "distinguish the method of protest with the motivation". That "ends justifies the means" Bolshevism got us the Soviet state for 75 years, and many similar totalitarian and authoritarian states in the world founded by revolutionary movements, including Nazism. It's a fake hypothetical in any event to invoke a Hitler site today, because it is a minority of sites in a context with many other sites that are free to denounce them, unlike the actual Hitler context in history. Generally, the best free speech plan is to have more free speech, not less (see Skokie ACLU case). A plan that involves removing somebody's speech to "cleanse" the area usually backfires and fails to stop the bad speech ultimately anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-18-2010, 04:20 AM
Ken Davis Ken Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Western Appalachia
Posts: 193
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post
@Ken Davis Just because the government might do wrong and overclassify doesn't mean that we as journalists or the public get to use coercion and force to obtain these documents. That's why I point to the role of a conscience-driven whistleblower who *can make his case under the law* as a preferable option. You're seeing this issue in too binary a form, it's not about illegitimate secrecy versus anarchy, but about the existing legal tools there are indeed to uncover government secrets, and this wild claim from anarchists -- which I reject utterly -- that because the government over-classifies and "journalists don't do their job," they get to use force, stealth and criminality to get what they want. They don't.

The methods and the means matter because they are fiercely trying to remake the world -- and it will not be something better, as they themselves are secret. You would think the WikiLeaks crowbar were the only tool for journalism now these days, even though normal journalists still go about the work of finding sources off the record, filing FOIAs, asking the hard questions, etc. There will be no magic ecstatic transparency heaven with rainbows and unicorns.
Thanks for these things to think about. I don't think you need debunk rainbows and unicorns here.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-18-2010, 12:41 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherine Fitzpatrick View Post
@Simon Willard As it stands now, whitehouse.gov, which Gov 2.0 simps hold up as a paragon of "openness," has *no comments whatsoever open*. Not even moderated. Not even those 10 letters a day that Obama says he picks out of the fire hose and reads. It has an old template like a 1990s website in which you can send in your opinion, which merely gets you put on a keyworded spam list. No, discussion.gov would not be sufficient, but it might be a start. I'm glad we've established that you see the public discourse merely as a form of graffiti. So I don't think I'll be able to reason with you. The people have the right to seek redress to grievances. Now they've got to do this online. Where? It's no good to say that they can take a number and get in line to be no. 1,000th comment on Huffpo.
I'm asking because I want to understand how you think this could work. These questions are technical, not political. Isn't it true that useful comments are buried under 10 times as much worthless graffitti? Can any person digest the high volume of Internet postings? How does this relate to "public discourse"? What's better: making the 1,000th comment on Huffpo or the 50,000th comment on whitehouse.gov?

Last edited by Simon Willard; 12-18-2010 at 01:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-19-2010, 01:42 AM
Catherine Fitzpatrick Catherine Fitzpatrick is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

That's why I suggest using the Facebook log-in to have identity and accountability and reputation on the line to winnow out all the drive-by hate comments.

There are people who go through all the hundreds and even thousands of comments that end up on a Paul Krugman column or a Huffpo, so why not on WhiteHouse.gov or State.gov? Some of the discussions on some pages are going to be fairly narrow and wonky and not attract a huge crowd. Others will.

Please don't tell me that this is some impossible content problem to manage. There are all kinds of content management systems. You can have all the comments go into rant bins or newbie bins or low reputation bins if there are zillions of them -- BTW that's how Huffpo winnows it out, giving some users the title "super user" etc etc to make them stand out more.

The important thing is that if you have a searchable forums, you can use it to search comments with key words.

I'm not worried about the problem of "too much" on these sites as I am of "too little" place for the First Amendment to live and move and have its being.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-19-2010, 01:45 AM
Catherine Fitzpatrick Catherine Fitzpatrick is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

You and others will probably like what Tom Blanton of NSA has to say about all this, he looks at overclassification as the problem and wants to change that system as the solution to wiki hacks.

I question that as really the diagnosis of the problem but Blanton's paper is interesting to read in the direction of how to make non-criminal solutions to the problem of government secrecy, links to his paper here:

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_s...ink-it-is.html
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-19-2010, 01:58 PM
spandrel spandrel is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 103
Default Re: Denial of Service (Robert Wright & Catherine Fitzpatrick)

I believe that any comparison of Assange's activities to "civil disobedience" is tenuous at best. With "civil disobediencce" Assange's activities merely share the quality of 'resistance' and are probably more accurately described as nihilistic. Assange's own writings have stated that he is not interested in transparancy, but rather in the disruption of social orders. He has been very clear on this.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.