The focus of a large portion of media coverage here in the United States since the cables were released has been on the political response to Wikileaks' action, on the allegations of Wikileaks' criminality, on the severing of ties with the organization by major corporations in response to Lieberman et al., and on Assange and his legal woes. All of that is newsworthy, but it has come at the cost of focusing on the stories told by the cables themselves. The things said and done by US agents, in the name of the American people, have been, to judge by the cables I've read, sometimes good, sometimes innocuous, and sometimes unconscionably unethical and criminal. I'm all in favor of any action that brings the focus back where it belongs, and tries to defeat what I suspect has been a deliberate, massive US campaign of noise and distraction, albeit a campaign that increasingly seems of a rather dated style. I'll be massively impressed if Anon can achieve anything close to those stated ends. I understand people's skepticism, and even the occasional condescension, but I'm not ready to dismiss a phenomenon I don't really understand just because the participants are unseasoned and untutored in the art of studied apathy.
And yet, note that this comment continues the discussion-about-the-discussion, rather than focusing on the specific 'unconscionably unethical and criminal' details.
Nothing wrong with that in this context, but it highlights how hard it is to do anything else. It's easier to talk about the reactions and dissemination and censorship and rhetoric. Those are actually more universal topics, and they're unfolding now.
The nitty-gritty of the cable revelations is subject to a interpretation and even more acrimonious rehearsed-roles debate, so (as here) it often just gets mentioned in passing, with a hand-wave and nod to its importance.
Of the cables' revelations, many that people are 'shocked, shocked' to hear are what was already assumed to be true or partially reported -- covert military strikes in other countries, attempts to downplay fatalities or wartime actions in error, frank assessments of shady regimes.
And it seems to me many people are just seeing what they wanted to see. If they already bought into a Chomskyite view of the US as the scheming amoral fount of all evil in the world, there's enough in the cables to feed that view. If they think the US is just another powerful but bumbling country pursuing its interests, fighting several wars, striking balances with sordid situations not entirely under its control, there's enough in the cables to feed that view, too.
What's the one or two things in the cables you found most surprising?
I've read the "best of" coverage of the leaked cables, and honestly, speaking as somebody who usually doesn't have a problem getting interested in world affairs, it didn't seem like there were any big revelations. The coverage was all along the lines of, "Everybody knew this, but it's humorous/scandalous/juicy that somebody got caught saying it." If Anonymous finds anything shocking in the cables, they will make the MSM look lazy and incompetent.
Rather unusually, the issues covered by the media have actually been the most important ones. The battle over the privacy of information is far more important than the facts revealed by a small number of actual information leaks.
It's a really interesting litmus test of what the media have - or have not - learnt after what felt like an acquiescence during the Bush rhetoric after 9/11 regarding Iraq in particular.
Dunno about science, but this seems like it may actually further wikileaks' goals, as opposed to attacking corporations that are only defending themselves legally.
This seems interesting and a lot less 'illegal'. There has been 1 arrest so far that I know of, a 16 year old kid from the Netherlands has been arrested for being a part of the MasterCard DDoS. [0]
Indeed. Seeding the data everywhere and in plain sight has been a successful tactic in the past, especially for Anon during the Scientology raids. This is similar - government employees are not allowed to view the material, so its proliferation could actually be problematic for some people and cause more of a bureaucratic nightmare than already exists. In terms of any actual usefulness to their analysis, that remains to be seen.
This seems overly strategic for an internet group. They started gaining traction DDOSing small sites, taking them down, gaining publicity/support, and moving to a bigger target. Now they're using momentum provided by their huge publicity to do something useful. It's like a marketing strategists viral wet dream.
I would be extremely grateful if you open-sourced roflbot. I've been meaning to learn lisp for a while, and an app like this seems like a perfect place to start by perusing its source.
Boing boing cherry picking the only thing they approve of out of the chaos? There's no evidence that any of the ddos'ers are on board with this at all.
The most amusing thing is the comments section getting bent out of shape at the use of 'gentlemen' in the image as not being inclusive to females. Talk about a culture clash.
> There's no evidence that any of the ddos'ers are on board with this at all.
And given this groups nature I don't think there will be much evidence about anything they do at all, other than initial communications, side effects and occasionally apparently an arrest.
That's the nature of the beast, and that is exactly what makes it so hard to come to terms with it for many people that would like to see 'organization'. To the extent that anon has an organization you'd probably have to name them 'core' or something like that and even that does not really do it justice. This is a fairly complex issue and even talking about it I find it hard to pick exactly the right terms without almost automatically falling back to using terms that somehow subtly do not apply.
What evidence would satisfy you that some people of some anonymous group are partaking in some activity claiming that they partook in some other activity ?
Oh come on, the 'gentelman' is referring to the spirit of the statement, is a figure of speech and does not refer to any gender at all. In the concept of Anonymous there are no genders, faces or names, all are equal.
If they'd start to bend it to contemporary political correctness, it would loose it's meaning.
As a female, I occasionally address my other female friends as 'gentlemen' when in a group to illicit laughter. We find it amusing, and have no problem being addressed as gentlemen. Take back the night etc?
I would not be surprised by a decent response to this, plenty of Anon got out of their parent's basements to the Co$ protests. This doesn't require leaving the computer, a far easier proposition for most I would expect.
[+] [-] pigbucket|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gojomo|15 years ago|reply
Nothing wrong with that in this context, but it highlights how hard it is to do anything else. It's easier to talk about the reactions and dissemination and censorship and rhetoric. Those are actually more universal topics, and they're unfolding now.
The nitty-gritty of the cable revelations is subject to a interpretation and even more acrimonious rehearsed-roles debate, so (as here) it often just gets mentioned in passing, with a hand-wave and nod to its importance.
Of the cables' revelations, many that people are 'shocked, shocked' to hear are what was already assumed to be true or partially reported -- covert military strikes in other countries, attempts to downplay fatalities or wartime actions in error, frank assessments of shady regimes.
And it seems to me many people are just seeing what they wanted to see. If they already bought into a Chomskyite view of the US as the scheming amoral fount of all evil in the world, there's enough in the cables to feed that view. If they think the US is just another powerful but bumbling country pursuing its interests, fighting several wars, striking balances with sordid situations not entirely under its control, there's enough in the cables to feed that view, too.
What's the one or two things in the cables you found most surprising?
[+] [-] dkarl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodata|15 years ago|reply
(I watched CNN America once. Once was enough.)
[+] [-] maryrosecook|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knowaveragejoe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bittersweet|15 years ago|reply
[0] http://tweakers.net/nieuws/71259/politie-arresteert-16-jarig... (dutch)
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flatline|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smokeyj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zachbeane|15 years ago|reply
http://wigflip.com/roflbot/
[+] [-] mcantor|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trotsky|15 years ago|reply
The most amusing thing is the comments section getting bent out of shape at the use of 'gentlemen' in the image as not being inclusive to females. Talk about a culture clash.
[+] [-] jacquesm|15 years ago|reply
And given this groups nature I don't think there will be much evidence about anything they do at all, other than initial communications, side effects and occasionally apparently an arrest.
That's the nature of the beast, and that is exactly what makes it so hard to come to terms with it for many people that would like to see 'organization'. To the extent that anon has an organization you'd probably have to name them 'core' or something like that and even that does not really do it justice. This is a fairly complex issue and even talking about it I find it hard to pick exactly the right terms without almost automatically falling back to using terms that somehow subtly do not apply.
What evidence would satisfy you that some people of some anonymous group are partaking in some activity claiming that they partook in some other activity ?
[+] [-] Seth_Kriticos|15 years ago|reply
If they'd start to bend it to contemporary political correctness, it would loose it's meaning.
[+] [-] jfoutz|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marquis|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitwize|15 years ago|reply
All your leak are belong to us.
[+] [-] goldenthunder|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rhapso|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orblivion|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lhnn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hartror|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinhboy|15 years ago|reply